M     m 


T«?0 


.) 


lBV~Tl0^7C33    1915b 
Canright,   Dudley  Marvin, 

1840-1919. 
The  Lord's  day,  from  neithe 

Catholics  nor  pagans 


Seventh-Day  Adventism 
Renounced 

By  REV.  D.  M.  CANRIGHT 

418  Pages.    Cloth,  $1.00  postpaid ;  paper,  60c.  postpaid 


It  takes  up  their  origin,  his- 
tory, and  numerous  mistakes, 
and  Mrs.  White's  pretended  rev- 
elations ;  but  dwells  especially 
on  their  arguments  for  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath,  which  are  so  thor- 
oughly answered  that  no  other 
book  is  needed  on  this  question. 
Ministers  of  all  denominations 
have  found  in  it  just  the  ma- 
terial they  needed  to  post  them- 
selves on  that  error  and  furnish 
them  with  facts  to  refute  it. 

"On  some  subjects  there  is 
one  book  that  stands  so  far 
above  all  other  books  on  the 
same  subject  that  if  a  person 
has  that  one  book  he  needs  no 
other  on  that  subject.  Can- 
right's  Seventh-Day  Adventism 
Renounced  is  just  such  a  book. 
It  is  a  complete  and  perfect  ex- 
posure of  that  delusion  from  be- 
ginning to  end." — Southland 
Evangelist. 

*'No  other  book  has  fallen  into 
our  hands  that  is  so  well  adapt- 
ed to  meet  the  sophistry  and 
statements  of  Seventh-Day  Ad- 
ventists  as  this." — Central  Free 
Will  Baptists. 

"Adventism  Renounced  is  like 
Webster's  Dictionary  or  the  sunr 


shine,  it  needs  no  praise.  No 
candid  man  can  read  the  book 
and  be  an  Adventist.  Every 
preacher  should  have  a  copy." — 
J.  V.  Coombs,  President  of  In- 
diana College,  Covington,  Ind. 

"It  is  complete  and  unanswer- 
able."— Prof.  C.  C.  Ramsey, 
Harvard  College. 

"The  best  that  has  yet  been 
published  on  that  subject." — 
Prof.  D.  R.  Dungan,  President 
of  Drake  University. 

"Eminently  fitted  to  do  good 
work."— Prof.  K.  Brooks,  D.D., 
President  Kalamazoo  College. 

"It  is  all  one  needs  on  the 
subject." — Texas  Baptist  and 
Herald. 

"The  best  thing  published  upon 
the  subject." — Chicago  Standard. 

"Ought  to  have  a  wide  read- 
ing."'.--CAm/ian  Advocate,  De- 
troit. 

"We  are  delighted  with  his 
work.  Every  minister  should 
have  it  on  his  table." — Christian 
Standard,  Cincinnati. 

"No  other  book  in  the  market 
can  possibly  fill  its  place." — 
California  Christian  Advocate, 


The  Lord's  Day  from  Neither 
CathoUcs  Nor  Pagans 

By  REV.  D.  M.  CANRIGHT 


12mo,  cloth,  net  $1.00 


This  book  is  a  mine  of  histori- 
cal facts  touching  all  sides  of 
the  Lord's  Day  observance  from 
the  apostles  till  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century.  The  testimony 
of  all  the  early  Fathers  is  given. 
High  Catholic  authorities  are 
quoted  locating  the  change  of 
the  day  with  the  apostles,  not 
centuries  later.  Personal  letters 
are  given  from  five  great  uni- 
versities denying  that  the  pagan 
Romans  ever  paid  any  religious 
regard  to  Sunday.  Constantine's 
Sunday  law  is  examined. 

Testimonials  from  ministers 
who  read  and  criticized  the  book 
in  manuscripts: 

"It  is  a  splendid  piece  of  work, 


overwhelmingly  convincing,  and 
satisfactory." — Rev.  Oliver  W. 
Van  Osdel,  D.D.,  Baptist. 

"It  shows  splendid  work  in  re- 
search. It  will  be  a  classic!" — 
Rev.  W.  H.  Phelps,  seven  years 
pastor  of  M.  E.  Church,  Battle 
Creek,  Mich.,  where  Adventism 
is  strong. 

"The  arguments  are  logical 
and  unanswerable." — Rev.  John 
F.  Husted,  Congregationalist. 

"A  splendid  presentation  of 
your  case.  Your  review  of  the 
Greek  Church  in  its  bearing  on 
the  question  is  admirable.  It  is 
a  new  idea  in  this  discussion." — 
Rev.  M.  H.  MacLeod,  Presby- 
terian, Pueblo,  Col. 


TESTIMONIALS 


The  following  are  only  a  few 
lines  out  of  a  large  number 
from  the  leading  religious  jour- 
nals in  America : 

''It  is,  perhaps,  the  most  thor- 
ough discussion  of  the  subject 
that  has  yet  appeared.  It  is  a 
treasury  of  facts  concerning  the 
Lord's  Day." — Journal  and  Mes- 
senger, Baptist. 

"We  have  never  seen  its 
equal." — The  New  Weekly  Mail, 
Swedish  Baptist. 

"This  new  book  is  a  veritable 
store  house  of  pertinent  and 
convincing  facts.  It  should  be 
in  the  hands  of  every  evangeli- 
cal worker." — Baptist  Leader. 

"This  is  unquestionably  the 
most    thorough,    comprehensive 


and  unanswerable  volume  we 
have  ever  seen  on  this  subject." 
— Western  Recorder,  Baptist. 

"In  clearness,  strength  and 
adaptability  it  surpasses  anything 
we  have  yet  read  on  the  Sabbath 
question  and  against  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists."— /?  eligio  us 
Telescope,  United  Brethren. 

"All  who  may  have  been  per- 
plexed by  the  teachings  of  Sev- 
enth-Day Adventists  will  find 
the  Sunday  question  entirely 
cleared  up  in  this  masterly 
work." — Bvangelical  Lutheran. 

"The  Advent  people  will  have 
their  hands  full  of  a  task  ^  if 
they  attempt  to  answer  it." — 
Herald  of  Gospel  Liberty,  Dis- 
ciple. 


TESTIMONIALS 


"It  contains  records  that  the 
Christian  Sunday,  as  Lord's 
Day,  was  established  as  a  day 
of  rest  long  before  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  came  into  ex- 
istance." — Presbyterian  A  dvance. 

"Every  claim  of  the  Adventists 
seems  to  be  overturned  and  an- 
swered." —  Christian  Observer, 
Presbyterian. 

"In  reading  the  Lord's  Day  I 
have  been  both  informed  and 
enthused  by  the  good  things  it 
contains." — Rev.  Vawter,  in 
Christian  Standard,  Disciple. 

"This  book  will  be  of  very 
great  value  to  those  who  would 
maintain  that  the  first  day  of 
the  week  should  be  observed  as 
the  Christian  Sabbath." — Chris- 
tian Workers'  Magazine. 

"This  book  is  a  valuable  con- 


tribution to  the  present-day  dis- 
cussion of  this  subject." — Chris- 
tian Advocate,  Methodist. 

"The  book  shows  wide  read- 
ing and  clear  thinking  and  de- 
serves a  place  in  the  library  of 
every  one  who  is  troubled  with 
Adventists." — Canadian  Congre- 
gationalist. 

"His  investigations  have  been 
extended  and  discriminating." — 
Baptist  Commonwealth. 

"I  have  seen  a  copy  of  your 
book,  The  Lord's  Day,  and  find  it 
a  very  interesting  volume.  Surely 
the  lovers  of  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath are  greatly  indebted  to  you 
for  the  wonderful  service  you 
have  rendered  the  cause." — Rev. 
H.  L.  Bowlby,  General  Secretary 
of  the  Lord's  Day  Alliance  of 
the  United  States. 


The  Complete  Testimony 

The  Testimony  of  the  Early  Fathers,  Proving  the  Universal 
Observance  of  Sunday  in  the  First  Centuries. 

12mo,  paper,  net  25c. 

In  the  first  seventeen  pages  eighty  New  Testament  facts  are  given 
showing  why  the  Lord's  Day,  with  the  Christians,  took  the  place  of 
the  Jewish  Sabbath.  They  are  very  plain  and  clearly  stated.  Then 
follows  the  clear  testimony  in  connected  form,  of  fifteen  of  the 
very  early  Christian  fathers  all  agreeing,  without  exception,  that 
the  resurrection  day  was  the  one  observed  by  all  Christians  immedi- 
ately following  the  apostles.  Their  testimony  is  conclusive.  Ad- 
ventists dread  it.  Then  follows  strong  testimonies  from  high  Cath- 
olic officials  locating  the  change  of  the  day  with  the  apostles,  never 
later.  Last  is  strong  historical  proof  refuting  the  claim  of  Ad- 
ventists that  the  pagans  reverenced  Sunday.  A  treasure  for  pastor 
and  people. 

"The  author  of  'Seventh-Day  Adventism'  gives  in  concise,  con- 
nected, form  the  testimonies  of  all  the  early  Christian  Fathers  from 
the  apostles  down  to  A.  D.  400.  Invaluable  to  pastor  and  people-^ 
there  is  no  other  booklet  like  it,"r-Carroll,  B.  H.,  D.D. 


Adventism  Refuted 

TEN  TRACTS  BY 

REV.  D.  M,  CANRIGHT 

Eight  pages  each,  all  in  one  package j  25c.  postpaid 
Sold  only  in  full  package 

No.  1.  Origin  and  History  of  Adventism 

No.  2.  The  Advent  Message  Examined 

No.  3.  Twenty-five  Objections  to  Adventism 

No.  4.  Mrs.  White  and  Her  Visions 

No.  5.  The  Jewish  Sabbath  Abolished 

No.  6.  Why  We  Keep  Sunday 

No.  7.  The  Seventh  Day  Sabbath  Test  a  Failure 

No.  8.  Is  Sunday  the  Mark  of  the  Beast? 

No.  9.  Not  Under  the  Law 

No.  10.  The  Commandments  in  the  New  Testament 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  Ten  Tracts  cover,  in  a  brief  form,  the 
chief  points  of  Adventism.  These  are  extensively  used  where  the 
book  is  too  expensive,  or  where  persons  would  not  read  the  larger 
work.  They  have  been  very  effective  in  helping  persons  who  are  be- 
wg  confused  by  Adventism. 


The  Lord's  Day 

From  Neither 
Catholics  nor  Pagans 


An  Answer  to  Seventh-Day 
Adventism  on  this  Subject 


Rev.  D.  M.  ^CANRIGHT 

Pastor  Emeritus  of  the  B  ere  an  Baptist  Churchy  Grand  Rapids  y  Mich,, 

Author  of  **  Seventh- Day  Adventism  Renounce dy"*  **  Adventism 

Refuted  in  Ten   Tracts,''  '*  Bible  from  Heaven*'  etc. 


"  I  try  to  put  myself  in  the  place  of  the  man  who  does  not 
know  all  the  things  that  I  know."— Pr«.  Woodrow  Wilson. 

**  We  also  are  compassed  about  with  so  great  a  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses."—f/eftr^ws  xii.  I . 


SECOND  EDITION 


New  York  Chicago  Toronto 

Fleming     H.     Revell     Company 
London  and  Edinburgh 


Copyright,  19 15,  by 
D.  M.  CANRIGHT 


My  Present  Standing. 

"When  a  prominent  man  leaves  one  church  or  party  and 
joins  an  opposing  one  and  gives  his  reasons  for  it  he  may- 
expect  that  his  old  associates  will  reply  to  him.  I  expected 
no  exception  in  my  case  when  I  renounced  Adventism,  so 
have  not  been  disappointed.  The  great  majority  of  my 
former  brethren  have  been  very  f riendl}'^  to  me  and  treated 
me  kindly.  A  few,  a  very  few,  have  done  otherwise. 
Their  object  has  been  to  counteract  my  influence  against 
what  they  regard  as  God's  work.  These  few  have  started 
the  report  that  I  have  been  sorry  I  left  Adventism,  that  I 
have  said  so,  have  tried  to  return  to  them,  have  confessed 
that  my  book  was  false,  and  some  have  said  that  I  was 
very  poor,  a  physical  and  mental  wreck,  with  no  hope  of 
salvation,  etc.  These  reports  are  accepted  as  facts  by 
honest  brethren  and  repeated  till  they  are  believed  by 
many  Adventists  the  world  over.  I  have  denied  them  in 
every  possible  way,  but  they  are  still  believed  and  re- 
peated, and  doubtless  always  will  be.  I  leave  God  to 
judge  between  us. 

I  now  and  here  for  the  hundredth  time  solemnly  affirm 
before  God  that  I  renounced  Adventism  because  I  believed 
it  to  be  an  error.  I  have  never  once  regretted  that  I  did 
so,  have  never  intimated  to  any  one  that  I  have  had  the 
least  desire  to  go  back  to  that  people.  It  would  be  im- 
possible for  me  to  do  such  a  thing  and  be  an  honest  man. 
I  am  now  (1915)  well  in  body  and  mind,  have  a  good 
home  worth  $10,000  or  $12,000,  and  have  four  grown 
children,  of  whom  any  man  would  be  proud.    On  leaving 

(13) 


14  MY  PEESENT  STANDING. 

the  Adventists  I  joined  the  Baptist  church  at  Otsego, 
Mich.,  and  became  its  pastor  till  it  was  built  up  into  a 
prosperous  church.  They  have  been  my  ardent  friends  to 
this  day.  Twenty  years  ago  I  moved  to  Grand  Kapids, 
Mich.,  took  a  new  mission  and  built  this  up,  organized  it 
into  a  church  which  has  become  one  of  the  strong  churches 
of  the  city,  having  several  hundred  members  with  a  fine 
edifice.  Have  twice  been  its  pastor,  always  an  active 
member.  At  present  I  teach  a  large  adult  Bible  class 
every  Lord's  day  and  often  preach  for  them.  Have 
always  been  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  church.  They 
honor  me  as  their  father,  consult  me  on  all  important 
matters,  and  hotly  resent  the  foolish  reports  which  some 
circulate  concerning  me. 

Out  of  scores  of  printed  testimonies  before  me  I  select 
only  a  few  which  speak  for  themselves : 

"  Grand  Ea^ids,  Mich.,  Nov.  1, 1907. 
"  To  whom  it  may  concern  : 

"  Having  received  many  letters  from  all  parts  of 
the  United  States  from  those  that  have  been  informed  by 
Adventists  that  Kev.  D.  M.  Canright  was  not  a  member 
of  a  Baptist  church  and  many  other  things  pertaining  to 
his  character,  we  very  emphatically  denounce  any  such 
statements  and  will  say  that  he  is  now  and  has  been  for 
many  years  an  active  member  of  the  Berean  Baptist 
church  of  this  city  and  twice  its  pastor,  a  man  above  re- 
proach and  above  all  a  noble  Christian. 

"  EespectfuUy,  W.  H.  Adrews,  former  clerk  and  charter 
member  of  the  above  named  church.  I  hereby  certify  to 
the  above. 

"  Kev.  Egbert  Gray, 
"  Pastor  of  the  Berean  Church. '* 


MY  PEESENT  STANDING.  15 

"  Grcmd  Ewpids^  Mich.^  April  9,  1910. 
"  To  wJiom  it  may  concern^  world  wide, 
"  Dear  Brethren  ; 

"  This  letter  is  to  say  that  Eev.  D.  M.  Canright 
has  been  known  to  the  undersigned  for  many  years  as  an 
earnest,  consecrated  Christian  man,  and  a  true  minister  of 
Jesus  Christ.  He  has  been  '  a  faithful  and  true  witness ' 
against  the  errors  of  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists  in  his 
books  and  tracts  for  many  years. 

"  Oliver  W.  Van  Osdel, 
"  Moderator  Grand  Eiver  Yalley  Association. 

"  Alexander  Dodds, 
"  President  City  Baptist  Mission  Society. 

"  W.  I.  COBURN, 

"  President  Baptist  Ministers'  Conference." 

The  Baptists  are  not  the  only  people  who  think  well 
of  the  Kev.  Mr.  Canright.  A  Congregational  minister 
adds  his  word : 

"  This  certifies  that  I  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
Kev.  D.  M.  Canright  of  this  city  for  more  than  forty-five 
years.  At  least  twenty  years  of  that  time  he  was  an  Ad- 
ventist  preacher,  and  during  those  years  his  reputation  as 
a  Christian  man  and  as  a  preacher  of  rare  ability  was  of 
the  highest  order.  His  name  among  the  Adventist  people 
of  this  state  was  of  the  highest  order.  His  name  among 
the  Adventist  people  of  this  state  was  a  household  word 
for  righteousness  of  character,  and  an  able  defender  of 
their  faith.  And  when  he  left  the  Adventist  denomina- 
tion, all  who  knew  the  man,  if  they  were  at  all  imbued 
with  the  Christian  spirit,  must  admit  that  the  change 
made  by  him  was  due  to  a  candid,  conscientious  con- 
viction of  what  he  believed  to  be  right.    There  could  be 


16  MY  PRESENT  STANDING. 

no  other  motive  in  his  case,  for  he  was  successful  beyond 
many  of  his  brethren,  and  honored  by  them  in  the  highest 
degree.  For  at  least  twenty  years  he  and  his  beloved 
family  have  lived  in  this  city  and  he  has  maintained  the 
same  reputation  that  he  had,  as  a  Christian  gentleman  and 
respected  citizen.  What  I  have  written  is  from  personal 
knowledge  of  Kev.  D.  M.  Canright  and  of  the  Adventist 
denomination  in  this  state. 

"J.  T.  HUSTED, 

"  Pastor  of  the  Wallin  Congregational  Church. 
"  Orand  Bwpids,  Mich.^ 

April  m,  i9ior 
The  Methodist  pastors  add  their  tribute  as  follows  : 

"  Various  inquiries  having  come  to  the  different  mem- 
bers of  the  Association  concerning  the  character  and 
standing  of  Kev.  D.  M.  Canright,  the  regular  monthly 
meeting  of  the  Methodist  Ministers'  Association  of  Grand 
Rapids,  Mich.,  did,  by  an  unanimous  vote,  adopt  the  follow- 
ing expression  of  its  confidence  in  and  regard  for  the  per- 
sonal worth  and  ministerial  usefulness  of  Brother  Canright. 

"  Rev.  D.  M.  Canright,  formerly  a  minister  in  the 
Seventh-Day  Adventist  Association,  more  recently  a 
minister  in  the  Baptist  Association  of  this  city,  has  been 
known  by  some  of  our  number  in  person  for  several  years 
and  by  reputation  by  the  rest,  and  all  our  knowledge  and 
information  concerning  him  are  of  the  most  favorable  kind. 

"  Any  reflections  on  his  personal  character  as  a  man,  a 
husband,  a  citizen,  a  son  or  a  Christian  are  without  foun- 
dation, in  fact,  are  unwarranted  by  any  facts  known  to 
his  intimate  acquaintances.  He  is  honored  among  his 
brethren,  respected  in  his  own  community,  and  is  com- 
mended by  us  as  being  worthy  of  confidence  and  trust 


MY  PRESENT  STANDING.  17 

He  has  had  an  honored  and  useful  ministry,  and  in  no 
sense  is  deserving  of  the  attacks  made  on  him. 

"  Done  at  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  this  11th  day  of  April, 
1910,  by  the  authority  of  the  Grand  Rapids  Methodist 
Ministers'  Association,  by 

"  John  R.  T.  Lathrop,  District  Supt. 

"  Chaeles  Nease,  President. 

"  J.  R.  WooTEN,  Secretary." 

"  OT(md  Eajpids,  Mich.^  April  11,  1910. 

"  It  is  with  sincere  pleasure  that  I  write  concerning  the 
character  and  integrity  of  the  Rev.  D.  M.  Canright.  I 
have  known  him  and  his  family  a  good  many  years,  and 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  they  are  very  estimable  people, 
and  have  the  confidence  of  their  neighbors  and  friends  in 
the  community. 

"I  consider  Mr.  Canright  a  Christian  gentleman  in 
every  sense  of  the  word ;  a  man  of  the  highest  integrity 
and  one  who  desires,  in  every  project  with  which  he  is 
connected,  to  make  righteousness  his  guide  to  action. 

"  He  has  done  business  with  our  bank  for  a  good  many 
years  and  I  have  personally  had  reason  to  test  his  integrity 
and  am  unequivocal  in  my  expression  of  confidence  in  him. 
"  Yery  truly  yours, 

"  Chaeles  W.  Gaefield.'' 

(Mr.  Garfield  is  president  of  a  bank  with  $2,000,000.) 

Adventists  sometimes  say  I  left  them  four  or  ^yq  times. 
I  withdrew  from  that  church  just  once,  no  more,  that  was 
final.  Their  church  records  at  Battle  Creek  and  Otsego 
will  show  that.  For  years  I  was  troubled  with  doubts 
about  some  of  their  doctrines  and  three  times  stopped 
preaching  for  a  short  period,  but  remained  a  member  in 
good  standing.    At  a  large  camp-meeting  I  was  persuaded 


18  MY  PRESENT  STANDING. 

to  swallow  my  doubts,  take  up  the  work  again,  confess 
that  I  had  been  in  the  dark,  and  go  on  again.  I  yielded 
my  judgment  to  the  entreaties  of  my  brethren  and  the 
love  I  had  for  old  associates  and  said  what  I  soon  re- 
gretted. I  found  it  a  terrible  struggle  to  break  away 
from  what  had  held  me  so  long. 

Since  I  left  them  they  try  to  make  it  appear  that  I  did 
not  amount  to  much  anyway.  "  Sour  grapes,"  said  the 
fox  to  the  delicious  fruit  which  he  could  not  reach  !  As  a 
refutation  of  their  detractions,  see  Chapter  II  of  my  book. 
I  will  here  state  only  a  few  facts  briefly : 

During  two  years,  1876,  1877,  I  was  one  of  the  general 
conference  committee  of  three  which  had  control  of  all 
their  work  in  the  world.  There  is  no  higher  authority  in 
the  denomination.  How  did  it  happen  that  I  was  placed 
in  that  office  if  I  was  not  one  of  their  best  men  ?  Year 
after  year  I  was  elected  on  the  boards  having  charge  of 
their  most  important  institutions,  such  as  their  Publishing 
House,  College,  Sanitarium,  Sabbath  School  Association, 
etc.,  etc.  For  proof  of  this  see  their  printed  year  books 
where  my  name  appear  constantly.  I  wsls  made  theo- 
logical teacher  in  their  college,  president  of  a  state  con- 
ference, associate  editor  of  a  paper,  etc.  I  selected  and 
arranged  the  course  of  reading  which  all  their  ministers 
had  to  follow,  and  I  was  sent  to  their  annual  state  con- 
ferences to  examine  these  preachers  in  those  studies,  in 
their  theology,  and  in  their  fitness  for  the  ministry.  Is 
such  work  usually  committed  to  an  inferior  man  ? 

But  it  was  as  a  writer  in  their  papers,  as  the  author  of 
numerous  tracts,  pamphlets  and  books  covering  nearly 
every  controverted  point  of  their  faith,  as  a  lecturer  and 
debater  in  defense  of  their  doctrines,  that  I  was  the  best 
known  during  the  last  fifteen  years  I  was  with  them.    In 


MY  PRESENT  STANDING.  19 

these  lines,  not  a  man  among  them  stood  as  prominent  as 
I  did.  Every  one  at  all  familiar  with  their  work  during 
that  period  knows  that  I  tell  only  the  simple  truth  in  the 
case.  They  know  it,  too.  For  my  writings  the  office 
once  paid  me  $500  in  one  check  and  many  other  times 
different  sums.  After  twenty-seven  years  they  still  pub- 
lish and  use  several  of  my  tracts  as  being  better  than  any- 
thing they  have  been  able  to  produce  since. 

My  long  and  thorough  acquaintance  with  Adventism 
and  all  their  arguments  prepared  me  to  answer  them  as 
no  other  could.  Hundreds  of  ministers  from  all  parts 
have  written  me  their  thanks  for  the  aid  my  book  has 
been  to  them  in  meeting  Adventism.  Did  not  God  in  his 
providence  prepare  me  for  this  work  ?  I  humbly  believe 
he  did,  and  this  reconciles  me  to  the  long  and  bitter  ex- 
periences I  had  in  that  bondage.  But  if  God  and  the 
truth  is  honored,  I  am  content. 

The  only  question  is,  do  I  know  their  doctrines  well 
enough  to  state  them  clearly,  and  have  I  the  ability  to 
answer  them  plainly  ?    Let  my  work  be  the  answer. 

Since  I  withdrew  Adventists  have  published  five  or  six 
different  tracts  to  head  off  my  influence.  If  I  amount  to 
so  little,  why  all  this  effort  ?  "What  they  do  refutes  what 
they  say.  God  has  preserved  me  to  outlive  nearly  all  the 
Adventist  ministers  with  whom  I  began  laboring.  At 
seventy-five  am  full  of  faith  in  God  and  the  hope  of 
eternal  life  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

I  love  those  brethren  still  and  know  that  most  of  them 
are  honest  Christian  people,  but  in  error  on  many  of  their 
riews.    I  would  be  glad  to  help  them  if  I  could. 

D.  M.  Canrigitt, 
Pastor  Emeritus  of  the  Berean  Baptist  Church. 

€h<md  Bajpids^  Michigan, 


The  Berean  Baptist  Church  was  raised  up  by 
Elder  Canright  and  organized  June  5,  1892,  with 
fifty  members.  Since  then  four  hundred  and  fifty 
have  been  baptized  into  the  church.  It  has  pros- 
pered steadily  from  the  first.  Its  membership  now 
is  three  hundred  and  thirty-one  and  steadily  in- 
creasing. Its  location  is  one  of  the  best  in  our 
city  of  120,000.  It  has  a  good  church  edifice  with 
all  modern  conveniences  and  is  clear  of  debt.  In 
the  city  and  state  it  is  recognized  as  one  among 
the  most  alive,  aggressive,  and  strictly  evangelical 
Baptist  churches. 

The  church  has  always  acknowledged  with  grati- 
tude the  work  Elder  Canright  did  under  God  in 
starting  it  on  a  solid  Scriptural  foundation,  which 
it  has  always  zealously  maintained. 

A.  J.  Bush,  Church  Clerk, 

Berean  Baptist  Church. 
September  23,  1915, 


20 


Preface 

ONE  of  the  chief  things  which  Seventh-Day 
Adventists  urge  the  most  strongly  is  that 
the  observance  of  Sunday  originated  with 
the  pagan  Komans,  thence  was  brought  into  the 
Koman  Church  and  then  the  Pope,  or  the  Papacy, 
imposed  this  upon  the  entire  Christian  world. 
Hence  Sunday  is  only  a  pagan,  papal  day.  They 
assert  this  so  strongly  and  so  repeatedly,  that  un- 
informed people  are  frightened  into  giving  up  the 
Lord's  Day  and  accepting  instead  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath. It  is  a  subject  on  which  people  are  generally 
not  posted.  Even  those  who  are  intelligent  and 
well  read  on  general  topics  know  little,  or  nothing, 
on  this  particular  subject,  while  the  common  peo- 
ple know  absolutely  nothing  about  it. 

To  learn  the  real  facts  in  the  case  requires  much 
careful  research  in  the  history  of  both  Church  and 
State  through  several  centuries  of  the  early  Church. 
Few  people  have  the  time,  or  the  means  at  hand, 
or  the  interest  to  do  all  this.  Even  educated  min- 
isters in  general  have  never  given  the  subject  much 
thought,  because  they  have  had  no  occasion  to  do 
so.  Hence,  when  suddenly  required  to  meet  Ad- 
ventists on  this  question,  they  are  unprepared,  nor 
do  they  have  the  necessary  authorities  at  hand  to 

21 


22  PREFACE 

quickly  look  it  up.  So  the  strong  assertions  of  the 
Adventists  often  go  unanswered.  In  an  ordinary 
audience  of  several  hundred  there  would  not  be 
one  person  who  would  know  how  the  pagan 
Komans  regarded  Sunday,  or  whether  the  Papacy 
ever  had  anything  to  do  with  it  or  not.  Hence 
they  are  easily  misled. 

I  do  not  mean  to  accuse  the  Adventists  of  pur- 
posely deceiving.  I  myself  taught  that  way  for 
many  years  while  with  them.  I  accepted  what  our 
own  "  History  of  the  Sabbath  "  said,  and  quoted  it 
as  conclusive.  It  was  long  before  I  saw  how  one- 
sided it  was. 

In  this  present  book  both  ministers  and  common 
people  will  have  the  facts  in  concise  and  handy 
form  for  ready  reference  with  the  testimony  of  the 
most  reliable  and  unbiased  authorities  given  in 
their  own  words. 

I  made  several  typewritten  copies  of  the  manu- 
script and  sent  them  to  five  well-informed  minis- 
ters, requesting  each  one  to  spare  no  criticism  nor 
pass  over  any  questionable  point.  Together  they 
gave  me  valuable  help  and  eliminated  some  non- 
essentials. They  also  added  much  of  value  which 
I  had  not  found  myself.  All  these  I  gladly  ac- 
cepted. 

Eev.  John  J.  Husted,  Congregationalist,  had 
been  familiar  with  Adventists  for  fifty  years. 
Eev.  O.  W.  Van  Osdell,  D.  D.,  Baptist,  had  met 
their  arguments  often. 

Kev.  M.  H.  McLeod,  Presbyterian,  has  published 


PREFACE  23 

a  written  discussion  with  a  prominent  defender  of 
Adventism. 

Eev.  W.  H.  Phelps,  Methodist,  had  been  for 
seven  years  pastor  of  the  M.  E.  Church  in  Battle 
Creek,  Mich.,  and  was  at  the  time  in  a  discussion 
with  the  Adventist's  pastor.  Hence,  all  were  well 
qualified  to  judge  of  the  matter  in  my  manu- 
script. Read  their  commendations  on  a  previous 
page. 

Then  I  selected  a  Seventh-Day  Adventist  min- 
ister, one  of  the  most  critical  students  in  their 
ranks.  He  kindly  consented  to  criticize  my  manu- 
scripts. He  did  a  thorough  job,  cutting  out,  or 
adding  words  and  sentences,  or  pointing  out  what 
he  thought  were  objectionable  statements.  I 
gladly  accepted  nearly  all  the  criticisms  he  made 
and  omitted  some  things  which  he  questioned.  I 
greatly  valued  his  review  of  the  work.  I  did  not 
expect  him  to  agree  with  all  my  conclusions  nor 
recommend  the  book.  He  could  not  do  this  and 
remain  a  Seventh-Day  Adventist.  His  criticisms 
were  all  made  in  a  friendly  tone,  showing  that  a 
kindliness  of  spirit  is  not  all  on  one  side. 

For  myself,  affer  thorough  research,  I  am  pro- 
foundly satisfied  that  the  Christian  Church  has 
been  right  in  observing  the  Lord's  Day.  I  have 
written  this  work  with  constant  prayer  that  I 
might  be  fair  and  kind  in  my  statements.  I  have 
a  high  regard  for  my  Advent  brethren,  and  the 
most  kindly  feeling  towards  them. 

I  know  they  are  sincere,  but  am  sure  they  are 


24  PREFACE 

mistaken  in  their  views  about  the  Sabbath  and  the 
Lord's  Day.  Their  wide-spread  and  aggressive  agi- 
tation of  these  subjects  will  result  in  a  better  un- 
derstanding of  these  questions. 

This  book  is  not  written  to  convert  Adventists, 
but  to  defend  our  own  faith.  If  they  would  let 
our  members  alone,  we  would  say  nothing  ;  but  we 
would  be  recreant  to  our  duty  if  we  kept  still 
while  they  publicly  denounce  us  as  pagans  and 
papists  and  then  go  from  house  to  house  among  our 
Christian  members  with  their  literature  and  Bible 
readings  to  proselyte  them  to  their  erroneous  views. 

The  future  of  Seventh-Day  Adventism, — what 
will  it  be  ?  This  is  a  conundrum.  Apparently 
two  insurmountable  difficulties  lie  before  them  in 
the  near  future. 

First.  They  are  now,  1915,  putting  tremendous 
emphasis  on  their  claim  that  the  end  must,  and 
will,  come  in  the  generation  beginning  in  1844, 
now  seventy-one  years  in  the  past.  They  say  they 
are  now  "  finishing  the  work,"  "  just  entering  the 
port."  It  creates  great  enthusiasm,  large  gifts,  and 
big  sacrifices.  But  if  the  generation  passes,  if  a 
few  decades  come  and  go,  then  what  ?  Yes,  then 
what  ?    Must  not  a  sad  catastrophe  follow  ? 

Second.  From  the  beginning,  they  have  claimed 
that  their  "  Message "  is  to  gather  out  just  the 
144,000  of  Eev.  vii.  1-4  ;  xiv.  1-5.  Then  the  end 
will  come.  But  they  now  have  122,000.  As  they 
are  gaining  now,  two  or  three  years  more  will  com- 
plete the  number  wanted.    Then  what  ?    Suppose, 


PBEFAOE  ^  25 

after  a  few  years,  they  number  200,000,  or  56,000 
more  than  wanted,  then  what  ?    Yes,  then  what  ? 

Third.  Another  issue  confronts  them :  A  younger 
generation  is  arising  in  the  Church,  better  educated, 
more  intelligent,  more  cultured,  and  more  tolerant 
towards  other  Churches.  These  are  steadily,  but 
surely,  adopting  the  manners  and  methods  of  the 
older  Churches.  These  young  men  are  beginning 
quietly  to  discount  Mrs.  White,  and  do  a  little  in- 
dependent thinking  for  themselves. 

Will  these  be  strong  enough  to  leaven  the  body, 
or  will  they  split  the  Church  on  some  new  issue 
now  that  Mrs.  White  is  dead  ? 

After  I  left  them,  naturally,  my  Advent  breth- 
ren expected  that  the  frown  of  God  would  follow 
me  for  opposing  their  "message."  Hence  ever 
since  it  is  reported  among  them  that  I  have  be- 
come a  physical  and  mental  wreck,  poverty  poor, 
in  despair  spiritually,  etc.  But  the  fact  is  that  at 
the  age  of  seventy-five  I  am  in  perfect  health,  have 
the  same  strong  faith  and  hope  in  God  as  ever. 
Financially  am  better  off  than  ever  before.  As  to 
my  mental  conditions  let  these  pages  answer. 

I  have  outlived  nearly  all  the  Advent  ministers 
who  labored  with  me.  Elder  White  died  at  the 
early  age  of  sixty ;  one  of  my  age,  with  whom  I 
labored,  died  some  years  ago  insane ;  another 
companion-laborer  was  killed  in  the  cars ;  an- 
other was  drowned ;  and  many  more  died  very 
young.  Had  any  of  this  happened  to  me  it  would 
have  been  reported  as  the  judgment  of  God.    Then 


26  PREFACE 

my  remarkable  preservation  and  prosperity  should 
be  accredited  to  God's  blessing.  I  firmly  believe  it 
that  way. 

Every  page  of  this  work  has  been  written  with 
earnest  prayer  that  the  tender  spirit  of  the  Master 
may  breathe  through  it  all.  None  of  us  is  infal- 
lible. All  are  liable  to  make  mistakes.  Hence,  we 
need  to  be  charitable  towards  those  who  have  the 
misfortune  to  be  misled. 


Contents 

I.  Seventh-Day     Adventism  —  What  ? 

Whence  ?  Whither?      .         .         •       3^ 

Origin  with  Millerism  in  1844 — Sincere — Mrs. 
White  their  prophetess— Set  Oct.  22,  1844  for 
the  end — Contradicted  Christ — Ten  mistakes 
Endorse  Millerism — Call  Churches  ••  Baby- 
lon "—Probation  ended  in  1844— Adopt  Jew- 
ish Sabbath  —  Proselyte— Exclusive— Church 
and  state  to  unite — Predict  triumph — The  harm 
it  does. 

II.  The  "  Religious  Liberty  '*  Scarecrow      54 

Persecution  predicted — Death  penalty — World- 
wide—United States  to  lead— All  nations  to 
keep  Sunday — Impossible  theory — All  the 
trend  the  other  way — Persecution  dying  out — 
Mrs.  White  commands  them  to  keep  Sunday — 
Sunday  laws  do  not  affect  religious  liberty — 
Affects  civil  liberty  only— Illustrated — They 
use  worldly  political  methods. 

III.  Adventists   Assert  that  the  Cath- 

olic Church  Changed  the  Sab- 
bath; BUT  Which  Catholic 
Church  ? 74 

Advent  assertions — Roman  Church — Claims 
origin  with  apostles— Date  of  first  ««Pope" 
— «  Catholic "  Church,  «  Roman  Church," 
«'  Papacy,"  all  different— True  Catholic  Church 
Apostolic — This  is  not  the  Roman  Church,  but 
the  general  Church— The  Eastern  Greek 
Church,  not  Rome,  is  the  «  Mother  Church." 

IV.  Catholics  Locate  the  Change  of  the 

Sabbath  Back  with  the  Apostles  .       87 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church — 
Council  of  Trent— Catholic  Bible— Papal  dele- 

27 


28  CONTENTS 

gate — Cardinal  Gibbons — Archbishop  Ireland 
— Catholic  Encyclopedia — Catholic  Dictionary 
— Written  testimony  of  two  Catholic  priests — 
Catechisms — Mission  priests — Catholic  "  Chal- 
lenges." 

V.  The  Pagan  Romans  and  Greeks  Had 

NO  Weekly  Day  of  Rest,  or 
Festival,  or  Worship     .         .         .     102 

Advent  Theory — Claim  pagans  kept  Sunday 
as  a  festival — Papacy  brought  it  into  the  Church 
— The  theory  false — Testimony  of  British 
Museum  —  Smithsonian  Institute  —  Harvard 
University  — Wisconsin  University — Fowler's 
Roman  Festival  text  book — Standard  Diction- 
ary —  Webster  —  Max  Muller — Tertullian — 
Encyclopedias  —  Dr.  Schaff — Admissions  of 
Adventists  themselves — No  heathen  nation 
ever  kept  Sunday — Lord's  Day  did  not  originate 
with  pagans,  but  with  Christians. 

VI.  Historical      Evidence      that     Our 

Lord's  Day  was  Observed  from 
THE  Time  of  the  Apostles      ,         .129 

Pliny's  Letter — Barnabas — Teachings  of  the 
Apostles  —  Justin  Martyr  —  Bardesanese  — 
Clement  —  Tertullian  —  Origen  —  Apostolical 
Constitutions  —  Cyprian  — Athanasius — Laodi- 
cea — Augustine — The  Greek  Church — Cyclo- 
pedias— The  Jewish  Sabbath  not  kept. 

Vn.  Sunday  Observance  Originated  with 
THE  Eastern,  or  Greek  Church, 
Not  with  Rome  in  the  West         .     165 

The  Church  began  in  the  East,  not  in  Rome,  in 
the  West,  Eastern  Church  the  Mother — Rome 
the  Daughter — Testimony  of  Bishop  Raphael 
— Greek  catechism  —  Gospel  carried  from 
Greece  to  Rome — East  to  West,  not  from 
Rome  East — Greek  Church  largest,  most  in- 
fluential for  centuries — Rome  no  influence  on 
East — Thirty  facts  in  favor  of — Five  great 
gospel  memorials — Easter  controversy. 


CONTENTS  29 

VIII.  CONSTANTINE*S  SuNDAY  LaW,  A.  D.  32 1        1 88 

Constantine's  parents  Christians — His  conver- 
sion in  312 — His  edict  nine  years  later — Proof 
— Only  a  civil  law — First  Civil  Law  for  Sun- 
day rest  —  Eusebius  —  Constantine's  policy- 
Summary —  Testimony  of  Adventists. 

IX.  The  Lord's  Day  at  the  Councils  of 

Nice,   A.    D.    325,   and   Laodicea, 

A.  D.  364 205 

The  Lord's  Day  recognized  by  the  first  general 
council— Importance  of  that  council — Sabbath 
ignored — Jewish  Sabbath  condemned  at  Lao- 
dicea and  the  Lord's  Day  sustained — It  was 
wholly  a  Greek  council — not  Roman. 

X.  The  Papacy  and  the  Lord's  Day       .     219 

Adventists'  assertions — The  Papacy  wholly  a 
Western  institution — No  authority  for  centu- 
ries after  Christ — Testimony  of  encyclopedias — 
Of  Adventists  themselves — Lord's  Day  kept 
centuries  before  the  Papacy  was  founded — 
Had  no  influence  in  the  East — No  Papacy  in 
the  East — Admission  of  Adventists — Eastern 
Church  opposed  to  Rome — "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Papacy." 


XI.        The  Mark  of  the  Beast — What  is 
It? 

Adventists  say  it  is  Sunday-keeping— That 
theory  absurd — The  Mark  of  the  Papacy  is  the 
supremacy  of  the  Pope. 


232 


XII.  The  Ten  Commandments  Not 
Changed  by  Catholics — Advent- 
ists Decapitate  the  Decalogue      .     247 

How  Adventists  try  to  prove  it — Protestant  and 
Catholic  Catechisms  compared — Lutheran  Cate- 
chism— Adventists  decapitate  the  Decalogue — 
Introductory  words  important  part  of  that  law 
and  designate  the  Author  of  it. 


SEVEKTH-DAY  AD VENTISM— WH AT  ? 
WHENCE?    WHITHER? 

TO  know  Adventism  better  than  Adventists 
know  it  themselves !  That  is  no  small 
claim,  and  the  reader  must  judge  as  to 
whether  this  claim  is  made  good.  I  believe  in,  and 
love,  the  doctrine  of  the  Second  Advent  of  Christ, 
and  with  many  others,  hope  it  is  near.  I  only  wish 
to  guard  against  false  theories  concerning  it. 

Having  spent  twenty-eight  years  of  the  best  of 
my  life  among  a  people  who  initiated  this  form  of 
faith,  or  have  espoused  it,  and  having  given  my  serv- 
ices to  them  and  for  them  for  that  period  of  time, 
I  may  modestly  claim  that  I  may  be  credited  with 
a  knowledge  of  that  whereof  I  speak. 

Note. — In  this  chapter  I  design  to  give  only  such  a  brief  out- 
line of  Seventh-Day  Adventism  as  will  enable  the  reader  to  com- 
prehend why  this  book  is  written.  For  a  full  account  of  this 
peculiar  tenet  of  faith,  and  for  an  answer  to  the  arguments  of  its 
advocates  from  the  Bible,  see  my  other  book,  as  announced  on 
the  front  page. 

The  facts  concisely  stated  in  this  chapter  may  all  be  found  in 
full  in  books  bearing  the  imprimatur  of  Seventh-Day  Adventism 
itself.  See  '*  Early  Writings,"  by  Mrs.  White  ;  Life  of  Miller; 
Life  of  Elder  White;  "Great  Controversy,"  by  Mrs.  White,  and 
their  Year  Book  for  any  year.  All  these  may  be  ordered  from 
Adventist  publishing  houses. 

31 


32     OEIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

The  adherents  of  Seventh-Day  Adventism  are  to 
be  commended  for  their  strong  faith  in  God,  in  the 
Saviour,  and  in  the  Bible.  They  are  ensamples  in 
the  great  sacrifices  they  cheerfully  make  for  their 
faith,  and  in  their  zeal  for  what  they  firmly  believe 
to  be  the  only  message  for  this  generation.  Among 
them  I  have  many  good  friends. 

Their  mistaken  views,  their  excessive  zeal  for 
these  views,  and  their  general  condemnation  of 
others  for  not  accepting  them,  largely  counteracts 
the  good  they  otherwise  might  do.  These  things, 
and  some  of  the  methods  they  employ  in  promul- 
gating their  doctrines,  lead  them  to  become  very 
annoying  to  other  Christians  equally  as  devoted 
as  themselves.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that,  unknown 
to  the  great  majority  of  their  own  people,  their 
leaders  have  dissembled  with  regard  to  their  past 
mistakes  and  their  reliance  upon  Mrs.  White's 
"  inspiration."  The  laity,  specially  the  converts  in 
foreign  lands,  know  nothing  of  this  nor  will  they 
believe  it. 

While  they  hold  and  teach  the  fundamentals  of 
Christian  doctrines,  with  these  they  mix  a  large 
number  of  errors.  These  erroneous  theories  they 
make  the  most  prominent  in  their  work,  urging 
them  as  the  present  test  of  acceptance  with  God. 
This  does  great  harm.  It  is  only  these  false  teach- 
ings which  I  wish  to  answer.  They  base  their  spe- 
cial "  message  "  upon  their  own  peculiar  interpre- 
tation of  different  lines  of  symbolical  prophecies, 
with  which  no  other  expositors  agree.     It  is  a  field 


ADVENTISM,  WHAT  IS  IT?  33 

where  they  can  easily  be  mistaken  as  they  have 
all  along  in  their  past  history. 

From  the  first,  Mrs.  White  has  been  held  as  a 
prophetess  and  all  her  writings  and  teachings  are 
regarded  just  as  divinely  inspired  as  the  prophets 
of  the  Bible.  Publicly,  they  try  to  soften  this,  but, 
privately,  teach  it  strongly.  No  minister  or  editor 
is  tolerated  among  them  who  questions  it.  To 
their  own  people  they  quote  her  as  "  inspiration," 
as  the  "  voice  of  the  Lord,"  on  everything  they 
wish  to  carry  through,  because  she  always  has  a 
ready  revelation  to  fit  that  case.  In  their  church 
papers  she  is  quoted  far  more  than  the  Bible.  Here 
is  one  from  the  Lake  Union  Herald^  November  Y, 
1914.  It  says :  "  Kead  carefully  the  following  writr 
ten  hy  the  pen  of  inspiration  P  Then  follows  a  quota- 
tion from  Mrs.  White.  Again :  "As  with  the  ancient 
prophets,  the  talking  is  done  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
throicgh  her  vocal  organs.  The  prophets  spake  as 
they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost — 2  Peter 
i.  21." '  No  stronger  possible  endorsement  of  her 
inspiration  could  be  made.  She,  herself,  all  through 
her  writings,  hundreds  of  times,  makes  the  same 
claim.  Hear  her :  "  It  is  God,  and  not  an  erring 
mortal,  that  has  spoken."  ^  Mrs.  White  stands  re- 
lated to  Seventh-Day  Adventism  the  same  as  the 
Pope  to  Catholicism,  or  Mrs.  Eddy  to  Christian 
Science.  If  you  become  a  Seventh-Day  Adventist, 
sooner    or    later,  you  will  have  to  accept  Mrs. 

*  Review  and  Herald,  Oct.  5,  1914. 
'  ''Testimonies,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  257. 


34      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

White's  Testimonies  as  the  voice  of  God  or  get  out. 
She  has  written  twenty  volumes.  They  push  the 
sale  of  these  in  every  possible  way,  through  their 
papers,  catalogues,  by  ministers,  canvassers,  col- 
porteurs, etc.  But  they  have  not  one  single  person 
specially  convassing  or  working  to  sell  Bibles. 
This  is  significant. 

During  the  past  year  many,  both  ministers  and 
laymen,  have  been  expelled  from  this  Church  be- 
cause they  refused  to  accept  Mrs.  White's  Testi- 
monies as  inspired  revelations. 

For  the  same  reason  many  Churches  have  been 
disbanded  to  get  rid  of  these  unbelievers  in  Mrs. 
White  who  could  not  be  excommunicated  any  other 
way.  Two  papers  are  now  published  by  these 
"Castouts." 

It  is  remarkable  what  a  large  number  has  all 
along  left  the  body  on  account  of  unbelief  in  Mrs. 
White's  Testimonies.  This  includes  many  of  their 
most  talented  ministers,  editors,  writers,  college 
professors,  physicians,  and  business  managers.  I 
could  fill  several  pages  with  simply  a  list  of  their 
names.  Every  year  sees  new  ones  added  to  the 
list.  Ten  years  hence  some,  who  are  now  promi- 
nent in  that  Church,  will  be  outside  and  opposing 
it,  judging  from  the  past.  Many  who  have  no  real 
faith  in  Mrs.  White's  inspiration  are  held  there  by 
official  position,  faith  in  other  parts  of  the  doc- 
trines, and  dread  of  religious  ostracism  by  their  old 
associates.     I  have  been  there  and  know. 

Modem  Adventism  of  all  branches  originated 


ADVENTISM,  WHAT  IS  IT?  35 

with  one  "Wm.  Miller,  an  old,  uneducated  farmer,  a 
sincere  Christian,  but  a  visionary.  Of  him  the 
"  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  "  says :  "  Limited  in 
his  educational  advantages,  and  a  farmer  by  occu- 
pation, he  yet  pretended  to  interpret  prophecy." 
The  same  authority,  article  "  Adventists,"  says : 
"Adventists,  or  the  followers  of  Wm.  Miller,  a 
fanatical  student  who  put  the  Second  Advent  of 
Christ  in  the  year  1843."  The  unanimous  opinion 
of  the  Christian  world  to-day  agrees  in  this  view 
of  Miller.  "  Millerism  "  has  become  a  byword  of 
reproach  ever  since.  Adventists  themselves  are 
ashamed  of  it ;  yet  that  was  their  origin. 

Miller  rejected  all  Biblical  commentaries,  simply 
took  the  Bible  and  wholly  relied  upon  his  own 
unaided  views  of  it.  He  decided  that  all  prophetic 
periods  would  end  in  1843.  A  chart  was  prepared 
with  all  dates  ending  there,  all  signs  fulfilled  then. 
Adventists  themselves  have  proved  Miller  un- 
reliable because  they  find  many  prophecies  not 
fulfilled  even  now,  while  he  taught  positively  that 
all  were  fulfilled  in  1843-1844. 

Soon  a  number  of  ministers  joined  him  in  preach- 
ing that  set  time.  Quite  a  number  were  converted 
to  that  view.  But  1843  passed,  and,  of  course, 
their  predictions  all  failed.  Learning  nothing  by 
this,  the  Adventists  next  set  October  22,  1844,  for 
the  end  of  the  world.  Several  hundreds  went  out 
"  lecturing  "  on  that  "  time.'^^  Papers  were  pub- 
lished, and  books  and  tracts  were  scattered  widely. 
The  work  was  largely  confined  to  a  few  of  the  JS^ew 


86     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAT  OBSERVANCE 

England  and  adjoining  states  with  scattering  ones 
elsewhere.  Everywhere  it  was  regarded  as  a  re- 
ligious freak  and  is  still  so  regarded.  Possibly 
forty  or  fifty  thousand  in  all,  for  a  period,  favored 
that  set  time. 

As  they  came  near  the  day,  great  enthusiasm 
prevailed.  Business  ceased,  goods  were  given 
away,  crops  were  left  ungathered,  meetings  were 
constantly  held,  and  all  were  waiting  for  the  end. 
I^o  food  even  for  the  next  day  was  provided.  Of 
course,  it  failed  again.  Five  years  later  Miller 
died  a  disappointed  old  man.  Nearly  all  who  took 
part  in  that  work  have  passed  away.  But  fanati- 
cism dies  hard  and  its  sad  fruits  are  here  yet. 

Over  and  over  Jesus,  in  the  plainest  possible 
language,  warned  against  just  what  Adventists  did 
in  1843  and  again  in  1844 — setting  a  definite  time 
for  the  Lord  to  come.  Hear  Him  :  "  But  of  that 
day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels 
of  heaven,  but  My  Father  only."  "  Ye  know  not 
what  hour  your  Lord  doth  come."  "In  such  an 
hour  as  ye  think  not,  the  Son  of  man  cometh  " 
(Matt.  xxiv.  36, 42, 44  ;  also  Matt.  xxv.  13).  Again : 
"  Ye  know  not  when  the  time  is  "  (Mark  xiii.  33 ; 
see  also  Acts  i.  Y). 

The  passing  of  their  set  time  has  proved  their 
folly  to  all  the  world.  Here  is  what  they  predicted 
to  occur  October  22,  1844 : 

1.  Christ  would  come  in  the  clouds  of  heaven. 

2.  All  the  angels  would  come  with  Him. 

3.  Gabriel's  trumpet  would  sound. 


WHAT  IS  IT?  37 

4.  Probation  would  end. 

6.  The  dead  saints  would  be  raised. 

6.  The  living  saints  would  be  changed. 

7.  The  wicked  dead  would  rise. 

8.  The  earth  would  be  cleansed  by  fire. 

9.  The  wicked  would  be  destroyed. 

10.    The  saints  would  inherit  the  new  earth. 

Not  one  single  thing  of  all  this  occurred — all 
failed.  ]^ow  read  Deut.  xviii.  18:  "When  a 
prophet  speaketh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  if  the 
thing  follow  not,  not  come  to  pass,  that  is  the 
thing  which  the  Lord  hath  not  spoken."  By  this 
plain  rule,  the  Advent  preaching  of  1844  was  proved 
to  be  not  of  God. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  great  confusion 
and  all  kinds  of  fanaticism  followed.  Adventists 
then  split  up  into  several  different  parties,  opposing 
each  other  and  continuing  their  divisions  to  this 
day.  There  are  seven  of  these  now.  All  these 
are  the  results  of  that  time  setting. 

Such  a  brood  of  errors  and  heresies  as  has  re- 
sulted from  Millerism  cannot  be  found  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church. 

Take  the  matter  of  time-setting :  some  of  these 
different  parties  of  Adventists  have  set  the  time  for 
the  end  of  the  world  in  1843,  1844,  1847,  1850, 
1852,  1854,  1855,  1863,  1866,  1867,  1868,  1877,  and 
so  on,  till  one  is  sick  of  counting.  Learning  nothing 
from  the  past,  each  time  they  are  quite  as  confident 
as  before. 

This  fanatical  work  has  brought  disgrace  upon 


38     OEIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

the  doctrine  of  the  Second  Advent,  so  that  it  is  not 
now  dwelt  upon  as  much  as  formerly  in  other 
Churches.  The  study  of  the  prophecies  has  been 
brought  into  disrepute  by  the  unwise  course  of  the 
Adventists.  No  thoughtful  man  can  fail  to  see 
this. 

To  their  credit  it  should  be  said  that  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  do  not  believe  in  setting  time 
definitely  since  18M.  But  then  their  leaders  were 
all  in  that  particular  time-setting  and  defend  it  yet. 
Elder  White  engaged  in  that  time-setting  in  1843 
and  1844.  So  their  leader  was  a  time-setter. 
Mrs.  White,  their  prophetess,  was  also  engaged  in 
the  time-setting  of  1843  and  1844. 

Elders  Bates,  Andrews,  Rhodes,  and  all  the  first 
crop  of  Seventh-Day  Adventists  were  in  the  time- 
setting  of  1843  and  1844  and  these  Adventists  still 
defend  it  as  right  and  approved  of  God.  They 
claim  to  be  simply  carrying  on  the  same  work 
which  Miller  then  began.  In  all  their  books  and 
sermons  they  point  to  1844  as  their  origin  and  en- 
dorse the  work  of  the  Millerites.  The  following 
from  Mrs.  White  will  settle  the  point :  "  I  have 
seen  that  the  1843  chart  was  directed  by  the  hand 
of  the  Lord,  and  that  it  should  not  be  altered  ;  that 
the  figures  were  as  He  wanted  them  ;  that  His 
hand  was  over  and  hid  a  mistake  in  some  of  the 
figures."  *  This  endorses  that  work  and  throws 
upon  God  the  blame  of  their  blunder  !  It  will  be 
seen  that  Mrs.  White  in  her  "inspired"  revela- 

1  "  Early  Writings,"  p.  64. 


ADVENTISM,  WHAT  IS  IT?  39 

tions  strongly  endorsed  Miller's  figures  for  1843- 
1844.  All  Seventh-Day  Adventists  have  to  abide 
by  and  defend  these  now,  and  always  must  in  the 
future. 

So  their  entire  system  rests  upon  the  figures  of 
an  old  farmer  of  seventy  years  ago  and  the  visions 
of  an  uneducated  girl  in  her  teens !  A  very  doubt- 
ful foundation.  Out  of  this  confusion  came  Seventh- 
Day  Adventism  this  way : 

Enthusiastically  engaged  in  setting  these  two 
times  were  all  their  leaders.  These  persons  held  on 
to  the  time-setting  of  1843-1844  as  being  right  and 
of  God  ;  but  said  that  on  October  22,  1844,  Christ, 
instead  of  coming  to  the  earth,  as  they  had  preached, 
began  the  judgment  of  the  world  up  in  heaven ! 
Now  they  had  it  where  no  one  could  go  and  report 
on  facts  and  so  were  safe  to  speculate  on  new 
theories. 

As  all  the  Churches  had  opposed  their  work, 
they,  in  turn,  denounced  them  all  as  fallen,  rejected 
of  God,  apostates,  and  "  Babylon."  And  this  they 
have  preached  strongly  ever  since.  In  big  letters 
they  label  all  other  Churches  "  Babylon^''  and  cry, 
"  Come  out  of  her." 

Thus  Mrs.  White  :  "  As  the  Churches  refused  to 
receive  the  first  angel's  message  [Miller's  work] 
they  rejected  the  light  from  heaven  and  fell  from 
the  favor  of  God."  *  Again  Mrs.  White  says : 
"  Satan  has  taken  full  possession  of  the  Churches  as 
a  body.  Their  profession,  their  prayers,  and  their 
»  "Early  WritiDgs,"  p.  101. 


40      OEIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

exhortations  are  an  abomination  in  the  sight  of 
God"  (page  135).  What  awful  thing  had  they 
done  to  fall  so  ?  Why,  Miller  said  the  world  would 
end  in  1844  and  the  Churches  said  it  wouldn't.  He 
was  wrong  and  they  were  right,  but  God  rejected 
them  and  upheld  the  Millerites  ! 

This  view  of  all  Churches  they  still  hold.  Hence, 
of  course,  they  can  have  no  fellowship  with  them. 
So  they  are  just  as  zealous  to  proselyte  a  devout 
member  of  a  church  as  they  are  to  preach  to  sinners. 

PROBATION  CLOSED  IN  1844 

Adventists  adopted  the  view  that  probation  for 
sinners  and  all  the  unconverted  world  ended  in 
1844.  Mrs.  White  states  it  thus  :  "  After  the  pass- 
ing of  the  time  of  expectation  in  1844,  Adventists 
still  believed  the  Saviour's  coming  to  be  very  near ; 
they  held  that  the  work  of  Christ  as  man's  inter- 
cessor before  God  had  ceased.  Having  given  the 
warning  of  the  judgment  near,  they  felt  that  their 
work  for  the  world  was  done,  and  they  lost  their 
burden  of  souls  for  the  salvation  of  sinners.  All 
this  confirmed  them  in  the  belief  that  probation 
had  ended,  or,  as  they  then  expressed  it,  *  the  door 
of  mercy  was  shut.' " '  This  statement  of  Mrs. 
White  herself  is  enough  to  settle  the  point  that  the 
Adventists  believed  "  the  door  of  mercy  was  shut " 
in  1844. 

While  Miller  and  all  other  Adventists  soon  aban- 
doned this  theory,  Seventh-Day  Adventists  con- 
*  *' Great  Controversy,"  p.  268,  edition  1884. 


ADVENTISM,   WHAT  IS  IT?  41 

tinued  to  believe  and  teach  it  strongly  for  several 
years,  or  until  1851.  Here  are  Mrs.  White's  own 
words : 

"March  24,  1849.  .  .  .  I  was  shown  that  the 
commandments  of  God  and  the  testimony  of  Jesus 
Christ,  relating  to  the  shut  door,  could  not  be  sep- 
arated. ...  I  saw  that  the  mysterious  signs 
and  wonders  and  false  reformations  would  in- 
crease and  spread.  The  reformations  that  were 
shown  me  were  not  reformations  from  error  to 
truth,  but  from  bad  to  worse,  for  those  who  pro- 
fessed a  change  of  heart  had  only  wrapped  about 
them  a  religious  garb,  which  covered  up  the  iniquity 
of  a  wicked  heart.  Some  appeared  to  have  been 
really  converted,  so  as  to  deceive  God's  people,  but 
if  their  hearts  could  be  seen  they  would  appear  as 
black  as  ever.  My  accompanying  angel  bade  me 
look  for  the  travail  of  soul  for  sinners  as  used  to 
be.  I  looked,  but  could  not  see  it,  for  the  time  for 
their  salvation  is  past."  ^ 

Here  you  have  the  shut  door  and  no  mercy  for 
sinners  just  as  clear  as  language  can  make  it.  Every 
candid  reader  knows  what  it  teaches. 

"The  Present  Truth,"  James  White,  editor, 
Oswego,  K  Y.,  May,  1850,  has  an  article  by  the 
editor  on  the  "  Sanctuary,  2,300  Days,  and  the  Shut 
Door."  Elder  White  says :  "  At  that  point  of  time 
[1844]  the  midnight  cry  was  given,  the  work  for 
the  world  was  closed  up,  and  Jesus  passed  into  the 
most  holy  place.  .  .  .  When  we  came  up  to 
» *•  Present  Truth,"  pp.  21-22,  published  August,  1849. 


4:2     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LOED'S  DAT  OBSERVANCE 

that  point  of  time,  all  our  sympathy,  burden  and 
prayers  for  sinners  ceased,  and  the  unanimous  feel- 
ing and  testimony  was  that  our  work  for  the  world 
was  finished  forever."  Any  honest  man  can  see 
that  the  "  shut  door  "  meant  no  salvation  for  sin- 
ners, and  this  is  what  Elder  White  and  his  wife 
taught  up  till  1851. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Seventh-Day  Adventism  was 
born  in  this  monstrous  delusion  that  probation  for 
the  world  ended  in  1844,  over  seventy  years  ago. 
Did  God  send  people  to  preach  such  a  fearful  error 
as  that  ?  If  they  made  such  terrible  mistakes  then, 
are  they  safe  to  follow  now  ? 

If  any  of  Mrs.  White's  revelations  were  from 
God,  those  teaching  the  close  of  probation  for  sin- 
ners in  1844  certainly  were,  for  she  states  it  in  the 
most  positive  terms  over  and  over  during  several 
years,  or  from  1844  to  1851.  Her  written  revela- 
tions for  those  years  are  full  of  it.  Her  statements 
are  too  plain  for  denial.  I  have  all  of  them  here 
now.  But  neither  she  nor  her  people  believe  that 
theory  now.  This  is  positive  proof  that  God 
never  told  her  what  she  claimed  back  there.  If 
she  was  misled  and  deceived  then,  she  has  never 
been  reliable  since.  The  entire  Seventh-Day  Ad- 
vent message  is  so  inseparably  bound  up  with 
her  revelations  that  they  must  stand  or  fall  to- 
gether. 

In  1846  Elder  White  and  wife  were  married,  both 
young,  she  only  nineteen,  very  sickly  and  claiming 
to   have    "visions."     Soon    Elders    Bates,    Holt, 


ADVENTISM,  WHAT  IS  IT?  43 

Khodes,  Edson,  and  Andrews  joined  them.  All 
these  had  been  in  the  time-setting  movement  of 
1843-184:4.  To  their  Advent  theory  they  gradually 
added  the  visions  as  divine  revelations,  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  sleep  of  the  dead,  annihilation  of  the 
wicked,  feet- washing,  tithing,  a  radical  health-diet, 
a  short  dress  with  pants  for  women,  and  other 
peculiarities.  They  now  claimed  that  they  were 
raised  up  of  God  to  preach  the  three  messages  of 
Eev.  xiv.  6-14.  The  Jewish  Sabbath  is  the  chief 
thing.  This  is  the  "  seal  of  God  "  with  which  the 
144,000  of  Kevelation  vii.  are  to  be  sealed  for 
translation  when  Christ  comes,  which  is  right  at 
hand.  These  144,000,  all  of  whom  will  be  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists,  will  be  all  the  ones  then  living  on 
the  earth  who  will  be  saved.  All  others,  Baptists, 
Methodists,  Presbyterians,  no  matter  what  they 
profess,  unless  they  join  them  before  that  time,  will 
be  lost.  Hence,  necessarily,  they  oppose  all  other 
Churches  as  "  Babylon,"  will  unite  with  none  in  any 
way,  but  zealously  proselyte  from  all  in  every  pos- 
sible way,  both  at  home  and  in  all  the  missionary 
fields  in  heathen  lands.  A  large  percentage  of  their 
"  converts  "  are  from  other  Churches.  In  this  way 
they  w^ork  great  confusion,  specially  in  foreign 
mission  fields  among  the  simple  minded  native  con- 
verts. Foreign  missionaries  report  that  this  is  be- 
coming one  of  the  great  hindrances  they  have  to 
meet. 

I  have  letters  from  missionaries  all  over  the  world 
all  agreeing  in  this. 


44      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

A  letter  of  April  9,  1914,  by  Bishop  William 
Burt,  Buffalo,  !N.  Y.,  says :  *'  In  Europe,  and 
especially  in  Italy,  these  Adventists  have  been  a 
troublesome  lot.  After  we  have  fished  people  out 
of  sin  and  superstition  they  come  around  to  trouble 
them  with  their  doctrines." 


Methodist  Episcopal  Churchy 
Inayat  Bagh,  Lucknow^  India, 
Dear  Brother  : 

I  knew  Seventh-Day  Adventists  at  home  and 
have  known  much  of  them  here,  and  it  is  my  judg- 
ment that  their  methods  are  worse  on  the  foreign 
field  than  at  home.  The  new  converts  have  never 
heard  of  such  things  as  they  teach,  and  they  are 
confused  before  we  can  even  find  out  that  they  are 
secretly  sending  their  literature  and  their  workers 
among  our  people. 

Fraternally, 

Frank  W.  Warne, 
Missionary  Bishop,  Southern  Asia. 


Honolulu,  T.  R.,  March  21,  1911. 
Dear  Brother : 

The  Seventh-Day  Adventists  are  proselyters 
rather  than  missionaries.  Here  in  Hawaii  they  con- 
fine their  efforts  to  such  work  among  white  people 
and  Christian  Japanese  and  Chinese,  for  whom  mis- 
sionaries have  labored  for  years,  and  whose  minds 
become  greatly  confused  through  the  propaganda 
among  these  new  converts. 

Sincerely, 

John  W.  Wadman, 
Supt.  Hawaii  Mission,  M.  E.  Church. 


WHAT  IS  IT?  45 

Edinhurgh,  Scotland. 
Dear  Brother : 

The  work  of  Seventh-Day  Adventists  in 
Japan  and  Korea  is  proselyting.  They  have  divided 
Churches  and  paralyzed  others,  and  have  done  much 
harm.  This  I  am  sorry  to  state,  as  some  of  their 
missionaries  mean  well. 

Sincerely, 

Bishop  Harris, 
Missionary  for  Japan  and  Korea. 


London,  England,  July  1,  1910, 
Dea/r  Brother : 

It  is  painful  for  me  to  be  obliged  to  write 
that  our  Seventh-Day  Adventist  friends  are  almost 
wholly  engaged  in  proselyting  from  the  evangelical 
mission.  They  are  a  sore  trial  to  us  in  that  they 
seem  to  delight  in  disrupting  small  groups  of  earnest 
Christians  gathered  with  infinite  toil  from  the 
heathen  world  around  us. 

Sincerely, 

Bishop  W.  H.  Oldham, 

M.  E.  Church. 


South  America  Mission  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Buenos  Aires,  May  16,  1911. 
Dea/r  Brother : 

Here  Seventh-Day  Adventists  do  not  seem  to 
do  much  work  among  the  unconverted  Komanists  or 
unbelievers,  but  carry  on  an  active  propaganda  of 
their  specialty  among  those  already  in  the  evangel- 
ical church. 

Yours  fraternally, 

Samuel  P.  Craver. 


46     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LOKD'S  DAT  OBSERVANCE 

New  York  City,  Jrnie  H,  1910, 
Dea/r  Brother: 

The  Seventh-Day  Adventists  are  persistent 
propagandists  as  to  their  peculiar  views,  and  I  often 
wish  they  would  give  their  force  less  to  non-essen- 
tials in  the  matter  of  salvation,  and  unite  upon  the 
broad  spiritual  demand  for  salvation  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Joseph  C.  Haetzell, 
Bishop  of  Africa  M.  E.  Church. 

Adventists  themselves  report  the  same  as  these 
other  missionaries  do.  Thus:  "A  friend  of  mine 
visited  the  young  people's  services  at  the  Tabernacle 
and  heard  a  returned  missionary  from  Africa  tell 
how  he  had  started  his  Mission  near  a  Methodist 
chapel  and  how,  in  due  season,  he  won  every  single 
member  to  the  truth  and  forced  the  minister  to  close 
the  doors  and  begin  elsewhere.  Here  your  mission- 
aries and  ours  tell  the  same  story "  (Kev.  W.  H. 
Phelps,  M.  E.  Pastor,  Battle  Creek,  Mich.). 

The  following  is  from  the  South  African  Sentvnel, 
an  Adventist  missionary  paper  : 

"  I  am  sorry  to  say,  we  have  met  some  bitter  op- 
position from  one  of  the  Churches.  Six  of  our  most 
promising  people  who  belonged  to,  and  attended, 
that  Church  kept  the  Sabbath  for  some  time,  but 
finally  gave  it  up  because  of  the  efforts  made  by 
the  ministers  and  through  reading  the  Canright 
book  denouncing  Adventism." 

It  will  be  seen  that  they  get  their  best  members 
out  of  other  Churches  and  then  complain  of  "  bitter 
opposition  "  from  that  Church  ! 


ADVENTISM,  WHAT  IS  IT?  4:7 

Pearl  Lagoon^  Nicaragua, 
Dear  Sir : 

Their  way  of  working  is  here  probably  the 
same  as  elsewhere.  They  try  to  win  over  mem- 
bers of  our  own  Church.  I  deeply  regret  their 
coming  here,  because  we  have  still  to  deal  with 
heathenism,  and  Adventists  sow  distrust  against  us. 
Missionaries  of  our  Church  have  labored  on  this 
coast  when  it  was  almost  unknown  to  the  outside 
world. 

Yours  truly, 

H.  Schubert. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Adventists  are  not  welcome 
anywhere  by  Christian  missionaries. 

Mrs.  White  and  their  leaders  dictate  to  their 
people  the  same  exclusive  system  which  Koman 
Catholics  teach  their  members.  Hear  her :  "  I  was 
shown  the  necessity  of  those  who  believe  that  we 
are  having  the  last  message  of  mercy  being  sep- 
arate from  those  who  are  daily  imbibing  new  errors. 
I  saw  that  neither  young  nor  old  should  attend 
their  meetings.  God  is  displeased  with  us  when 
we  go  to  listen  to  error  without  being  obliged  to 
go.'- 

Their  editors  enforce  the  same  teachings.  Thus 
Elder  Uriah  Smith  says  : 

"  It  will  not  mix.^^ 

"That  system  of  belief  which  we  denominate 
the  '  Present  Truth '  possesses  this  peculiar  feature, 
that  it  will  not  mix  with  anything  else.     It  is  a 
*  "  Early  Writings,"  supplement  pages  37,  38. 


48      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

sharp,  clean  cut,  decisive  doctrine.  It  admits  of 
no  halving,  no  copartnership  or  compromise."* 
Both  of  these  are  like  the  language  of  a  Koman 
Catholic  priest  to  his  members,  and  both  are  obeyed 
as  implicitly.  Hence,  as  a  rule,  they  attend  only 
their  own  meetings,  hear  only  their  own  ministers, 
and  read  only  their  own  religious  literature.  As  a 
result  they  sincerely  believe  they  are  the  only  ones 
who  have  the  truth,  the  only  ones  who  have  God's 
special  favors!  Mrs.  White  assumes  to  hold  the 
heys  to  heaven  as  firmly  as  the  Pope  does.  Keject 
her  inspiration,  her  teachings,  and  you  will  never 
enter  heaven ! 

They  teach  that  Sunday  is  only  a  pagan  day 
brought  into  the  Church  by  the  Roman  Papacy, 
and  is  the  mark  of  the  beast,  hateful  to  God. 
They  are  now  called  to  restore  the  old  Sabbath. 

This  is  now  "  the  seal  of  God  "  (Rev.  vii.  1-8), 
with  which  144,000  saints  will  be  gathered  out 
from  "  Babylon  "  and  the  world.  The  Sabbath  is 
now  the  supreme  test  of  loyalty  to  God.  They  are 
sent  to  "test"  all  with  it.  This  will  bring  out 
144,000  all  perfect  saints  who  will  be  living  and 
translated  when  Jesus  comes  (Rev.  xiv.  1-5).  Of 
all  the  millions  on  earth  at  that  time,  in  the 
Churches  or  out,  not  one  will  be  saved  except  these 
144,000,  and  all  these  will  be  keeping  the  Sabbath, 
— Seventh-Day  Adventists!  "The  Biblical  Insti- 
tute," by  Elder  Uriah  Smith,  page  240  says  :  "  We 
answer  that  before  the  end  we  understand  that  the 
>  "  Replies  to  Canright,"  p.  112. 


ADVENTISM,  WHAT  IS  IT?  49 

religious  world  will  be  divided  into  just  two  classes, 
those  who  keep  the  Sabbath  and  those  who  oppose 
it."  This  explains  their  zeal  in  proselyting.  These 
144,000  Adventists  will  be  privileged  in  heaven 
above  all  others  as  the  special  body-guard  of  Christ 
through  all  eternity.  Of  them  the  "  History  of 
the  Sabbath,"  edition  1912,  page  812  says :  "  They 
will  be  the  special  body-guard  of  the  Lamb ! " 
Mrs.  White  says:  "The  living  saints,  144,000  in 
number,  heard  the  day  and  hour  of  Jesus  coming." ' 
Of  the  most  glorious  place  in  heaven  Jesus  said, 
"Only  the  144,000  enter  this  place"  (page  14). 
There  "  the  names  of  the  144,000  were  engraved  in 
letters  of  gold  "  (page  15).  Again :  The  angel  said 
to  her,  "  If  you  are  faithful,  you,  with  the  144,000, 
shall  have  the  privilege  of  visiting  all  the  worlds 
and  viewing  the  handiworks  of  God"  (page  33). 
These  Adventists  are  to  spend  eternity  in  pleasure 
trips  to  "  all  the  w^orlds  "  !  They  are  to  be  a  very 
select  company  all  because  they  kept  Saturday  in- 
stead of  Sunday !  The  prophets,  apostles,  and 
mart3rrs  will  not  be  in  it  with  them !  As  to  the 
reasonableness  of  such  celestial  pleasure  trips  the 
reader  may  judge. 

In  "Great  Controversy,"  edition  of  1884,  Mrs. 
White  devotes  six  chapters,  31  to  37,  or  94  pages, 
describing  ahead  in  detail  the  awful  things  to  occm^ 
just  before  the  end.  The  Holy  Ghost  will  baptize 
the  Adventists  as  on  Pentecost.  They  will  go 
everywhere  with  a  "  loud  cry,"  work  miracles,  per- 
»  "  Early  Writings,"  edition  of  1882,  p.  11. 


60      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

form  wonders,  show  signs,  and  every  true  Christian 
on  all  the  earth  will  "  come  out  of  Babylon  "  and 
join  them.  Then  Satan  will  come  personally  in 
great  glory,  walk  among  men,  talk  with  them  fa- 
miliarly, go  all  around  the  earth  that  way.  He 
claims  to  be  Christ  himself  and  is  accepted  as  such 
by  all  Churches  and  statesmen.  He  now  says  that 
Sunday  is  his  holy  day  and  urges  that  all  Adventists 
must  be  killed  for  preaching  against  it.  His  ad- 
vice is  accepted  and  a  decree  of  death  against  them 
is  passed  in  every  nation  of  earth.  Just  then  Jesus 
comes,  and  delivers  them.  This  is  all  to  occur 
right  off,  possibly  in  a  year  or  two,  soon  anyway. 
Since  the  beginning  of  the  world  no  such  thiug  as 
this  has  been  seen.  There  is  no  scripture  for  it. 
It  rests  solely  on  the  word  of  Mrs.  White,  yet  they 
all  believe  it,  and  are  hurrying  to  be  ready  for  it 
by  disposing  of  their  property,  etc.  It  borders 
close  on  to  fanaticism  and  must  end  in  a  catas- 
trophe. 

THEIR  EXTREME  VIEWS  ON  DIET 

The  following  quotations  from  Mrs.  White's 
"  Testimonies  to  the  Church  "  give  an  idea  of  their 
extreme  views  on  diet.  Eemember  that  these  are 
accepted  as  divine  commandments  to  be  expressly 
obeyed.  The  following  quotations  are  from  Vol- 
ume II,  page  61  :  "  You  have  used  the  fat  of  ani- 
mals which  God  in  His  word  expressly  forbids." 
Page  68 :  "  Cheese  should  never  be  introduced  into 
the  stomach."    Page  70 :  "  It  is  just  as  much  sin 


ADVENTISM,  WHAT  IS  IT?  51 

to  violate  the  laws  of  our  being  as  to  break  one  of 
the  Ten  Commandments."  Page  96  :  "  The  use  of 
swine's  flesh  is  contrary  to  His  express  command- 
ments." Page  400 :  "  Eggs  should  not  be  placed 
upon  your  table.  They  are  an  injury  to  your  chil- 
dren." Volume  III,  page  21 :  "  We  bear  a  positive 
testimony  against  tobacco,  spirituous  liquors,  snuff, 
tea,  coffee,  flesh  meats,  butter,  spices,  rich  cake, 
mince  pies,  a  large  amount  of  sugar  and  all  sweet 
substances  used  as  articles  of  food." 

Well,  then,  what  are  we  permitted  to  eat  ?  Here 
it  is — Volume  II,  page  67:  "A  plain  simple  diet, 
composed  of  unbolted  wheat  flour,  vegetables, 
victuals  prepared  without  spices  or  grease."  No- 
tice it  is  just  as  big  a  sin  to  eat  a  piece  of  pork  as 
it  is  to  break  one  of  the  commandments,  which 
forbids  lying,  adultery,  stealing,  etc. !  Notice 
further  that  the  whole  tendency  of  this  system  is 
to  go  back  to  the  laws  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
were  designed  for  a  local  people  in  a  limited  terri- 
tory and  for  a  limited  time.  When  the  Gospel  was 
to  go  to  all  the  world,  these  laws  could  not  be  ap- 
plied. Think  of  missionaries  among  the  Eskimos 
in  the  winter,  trying  to  live  on  this  diet !  The 
directions  in  the  New  Testament  are  directly  con- 
trary to  Mrs.  White's  revelations.  Jesus  said,  Luke 
X.  8 :  "  And  into  whatsoever  city  ye  enter  and  they 
receive  you,  eat  such  things  as  are  set  before  you." 
And  Paul  said  the  same,  1  Cor.  x.  25 :  "  Whatso- 
ever is  sold  in  the  shambles  (meat  market)  that  eat 
asking  no  question  for   conscience   sake."    And 


62     ORIGIN  OP  THE  lord's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

Romans  xiv.  17 :  "  For  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not 
meat  and  drink,  but  righteousness  and  peace  and 
joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  These  texts,  and  many 
more,  strongly  contradict  the  rigid  rules  laid  down 
by  Adventists. 

THE  HARM  IT  DOES 

1.  It  imposes  on  conscientious  people  an  un- 
necessary sacrifice  not  required  by  the  Gospel. 

2.  Its  advocates  become  very  annoying  to  other 
Christian  workers  as  devoted  as  themselves. 

3.  Their  work  largely  is  to  divide  or  break  up 
other  Churches  and  missions  wherever  they  can. 

4.  It  creates  an  unnecessary  division  and  con- 
fusion in  neighborhoods  otherwise  united  in  a  day 
of  rest. 

5.  It  sows  distrust  of  all  other  Churches  in  the 
minds  of  thousands  who  do  not  join  the  Advent- 
ists, neither  can  they  be  reached  by  other  Churches 
after  that. 

6.  A  large  share  of  their  children  give  up  the 
Sabbath  as  soon  as  they  are  grown.  Then  they 
keep  neither  Saturday  nor  Sunday,  nor  attend  any 
church,  but  drift  to  perdition.  There  are  thousands 
of  these  now  scattered  everywhere. 

7.  As  their  meetings  are  held  on  Saturday,  no 
one  attends  but  their  own  people.  If  left  to  them, 
the  mass  of  any  community  could  never  hear  the 
Gospel. 

8.  The  evangelical  Churches  hold  all  the  Gospel 
truth  Adventists  have,  but  without  their  errors. 


ADVENTISM,   WHAT  18  IT?  53 

9.  By  staking  all  on  a  certain  limited  time,  as 
they  have  done  in  the  past,  and  are  now  doing 
again,  limiting  it  to  the  generation  beginning  in 
1844,  the  passing  of  their  set  limits,  ends  them  in 
disaster,  as  this  must  do  in  time. 

Their  power  lies  in  their  unbounded  faith  in  their 
"  message,"  not  in  any  truth  they  teach.  Evident 
sincerity,  clean  lives,  great  zeal  and  positive  asser- 
tions win  people  regardless  of  whether  or  not  their 
doctrines  are  reasonable  and  Scriptural.  Christian 
Science,  in  many  respects,  is  exactly  the  opposite  of 
Adventism,  and  yet  it  spreads  several  times  as  fast. 
So  does  Catholicism  and  other  isms. 

This  brief  sketch  will  give  the  reader  a  fair  idea 
of  what  Seventh-Day  Adventism  is,  and  what  it 
hopes  to  accomplish.  It  is  hoped  that  the  follow- 
ing chapters  will  help  to  save  honest  persons  from 
falling  into  that  error. 


n 

THE  ^'EELIGIOUS  LIBEETY^'  SCARECROW 

AS  early  as  1847,  in  their  very  first  printed 
publication,  "A  Word  to  the  Little 
Flock,"  published  at  Brunswick,  Maine, 
May  30,  1846,  Elder  White  argued  from  Kev. 
xiii.  11-18,  that  just  before  Jesus  appears,  a  decree 
must  go  forth  to  kill  the  saints/  In  this  pamphlet, 
page  19,  Mrs.  White  records  a  vision  in  which  she 
says  "  the  wicked  took  council  to  rid  the  earth  of 
us.  We  all  fled  from  the  cities  and  villages,  but 
were  pursued  by  the  wicked  who  entered  the  houses 
of  the  saints  with  the  sword.  They  raised  the 
sword  to  kill  us,  but  it  broke,  and  fell  as  powerless 
as  a  straw." 

From  that  day  till  this,  Seventh-Day  Adventists 
have  continued  predicting  that  this  persecution 
would  come  upon  them.  Why  were  they  to  be 
thus  outlawed  ?  Simply  because  they  would  not 
refrain  from  work  on  Sunday,  ''  The  Pope's  Day." 
What  power  is  to  pass  this  death  decree  ?  It  was 
to  be  the  United  States,  represented  by  the  lamb- 
like beast  of  Rev.  xiii.  11-18.  So  Adventists  said. 
In  my  other  book,  pages  85  to  116,  it  is  clearly 
proved  that  this  symbol  cannot  possibly  apply  to 

»  "A  Word  to  the  Little  Flock,"  p.  10. 
64 


RELIGIOUS  LIBEETY  56 

our  nation.  That  beast  kills  the  saints  (Rev.  xiii. 
15 ;  XX.  4).  But  the  Adventists  say  that  not  one  of 
them  will  be  killed.  This  would  contradict  that 
prophecy,  if  it  applies  to  them. 

So  long  as  their  work  was  confined  to  the  United 
States,  Adventists  limited  that  decree  of  death  to 
this  nation.  But  recently,  since  their  work  has 
extended  to  all  nations,  they  have  also  extended 
that  prophecy  to  all  the  world.  J^ow  a  stringent, 
Puritan  Sunday  law  is  to  be  decreed  by  every  na- 
tion on  earth  with  that  death  penalty  for  a  disre- 
gard of  that  day  !  The  Advent  Review  of  January 
7,  1915,  has  a  lengthy  editorial,  arguing  that  there 
will  be  a  world-wide  confederacy  of  all  nations  with 
the  President  of  the  United  States  as  the  head  of  it ! 

Then  that  world-wide  power  will  pass  the  long 
expected  Sunday  law  with  the  death  penalty  in 
every  nation  on  earth.  I  will  quote  a  few  sen- 
tences : 

"  What  is  more  natural  than  that  such  a  confeder- 
ation should  declare  for  a  Sunday  Sabbath  obliga- 
tory upon  all  the  people  of  the  world  f  Some  Presi- 
dent will  take  the  step  [to  issue  that  decree]  when 
the  time  is  ripe.  The  United  States,  according  to 
the  prophecy,  is  to  lead  the  world  in  bringing  to  a 
head  that  movement  which  must  culminate  in  the 
universal  decree  which  demands  the  worship  of  the 
beast  [keeping  Sunday]  on  the  pain  of  death!''' 
The  Advent  Review^  February  4,  1915,  says :  "  By 
means  of  the  Sunday  Sabbath  the  '  man  of  sin ' 
will  cause  all  the  world  to  worship  him  as  God, 


56     OKIGIN  OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

According  to  the  prophecy  of  Eevelation  xiii.,  as 
far  as  the  majority  are  concerned,  he  will  succeed 
in  his  deception." 

This  is  only  a  sample  of  what  Adventists  are 
constantly  predicting.  Mrs.  White's  latest  revela- 
tions are  urging  with  vehement  appeals  to  her 
followers  that  this  event  is  right  upon  them.  They 
must  hurry ^  hurry ^  hurry ^  and  "  finish  the  work  " 
before  the  decree  goes  forth  and  their  goods  are  all 
confiscated  and  they  are  all  sentenced  to  death ! 
If  any  wild  brain  ever  imagined  a  theory  more 
improbable  than  this  I  never  read  of  it.  The 
President  of  the  United  States  is  to  become  the 
head  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world  in  one 
Universal  Confederacy.  This  would  include  Eng- 
land, France,  Germany,  Austria,  Italy,  Eussia, 
Turkey,  China,  Japan,  and  all  the  republics  of 
South  America !  Then  he  will  influence  all  these 
various  nations  to  enact  a  strict  Sunday  law  with 
the  death  penalty,  for  a  desecration  of  the  day ! 
Consider  this  fact :  The  population  of  the  globe  to- 
day is  sixteen  hundred  million.  Of  these  there  are 
four  hundred  million  Chinese  who  keep  no  day  of 
the  week,  but  work  Sunday  the  same  as  on  other 
days.  Then  the  Mohammedans,  two  hundred  mil- 
lion, have  their  Sabbath  on  Friday  and  work  Sun- 
day ;  India,  with  three  hundred  and  fifteen  million, 
has  no  weekly  rest  day.  Then  comes  Japan,  Korea, 
all  the  millions  of  Africa,  who  have  no  regard  for 
Sunday. 

Out  of  the  sixteen  hundred  million  on  earth,  ten 


EELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  57 

hundred  million  (almost  two-thirds)  have  never  had 
any  regard  for  Sunday  and  do  not  now.  They  are 
opposed  to  Christianity.  Can  all  these  suddenly  be 
brought  to  keep  Sunday  themselves  so  strictly  that 
all  these  nations  will  join  in  a  Sunday  law  so  strict 
that  it  will  be  death  to  disregard  it  ?  And  all  this 
is  to  happen  right  off— perhaps  in  five  years  ! 

Then,  of  professing  Christians,  two  hundred  and 
fifty  million  are  Eoman  Catholic,  as  in  Spain,  Por- 
tugal, Italy,  Austria,  France,  Mexico,  and  all  the 
South  American  States.  These  Catholics  are  no- 
toriously loose  in  Sunday  observance,  and  ridicule 
the  Protestant  idea  of  Sunday  sacredness.  Thus, 
the  EcGlesiastical  Review^  February,  1914  (a 
standard  Catholic  monthly),  page  250,  says :  "  Prot- 
estants make  much  of  the  observance  of  the  Sunday 
and  are  sometimes  sincerely  and  honestly  shocked 
that  we  Catholics  seem  to  make  little  of  that  same 
observance."  They  attend  mass  forenoon,  then 
attend  ball-games,  beer-gardens,  bull-fights,  dances, 
elections,  or  work  if  they  choose.  Contrary  to  all 
their  theories  and  practices  for  ages  past,  are  all 
these  to  suddenly  turn  square  about  and  observe 
Sunday  so  strictly  as  to  enact  a  law  with  the 
penalty  of  death  for  desecrating  that  day  ?  Then 
there  are  one  hundred  and  fifty  million  Greek 
Catholics  comprising  nearly  all  the  vast  Kussian 
empire,  the  Balkan  states,  etc.  These  regard  Sun- 
day as  loosely  as  Eoman  Catholics.  With  many  of 
them  Sunday  is  a  market-day  after  a  morning 
service. 


58     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

Then  a  large  share  of  Protestants  pay  only  a 
slight  regard  to  the  observance  of  Sunday.  They 
go  on  excursions,  auto-riding,  fishing,  ball-games, 
and  large  numbers  work  on  the  street  cars,  rail- 
roads, boats,  in  their  gardens,  on  their  farms,  and 
in  many  other  ways. 

Then  take  the  non-churchgoing  people  compris- 
ing more  than  half  the  population  in  all  Christian 
lands.  Largely,  they  pay  only  a  loose  regard  to 
Sunday.  Every  observing  man  must  see  that  the 
whole  trend  in  all  lands  is  directly  the  opposite  of 
a  stricter  Sunday  observance. 

In  the  face  of  all  this,  Adventists  expect  the  whole 
world — heathen,  Mohammedan,  Eoman  Catholic, 
Greek,  worldlings,  socialists,  saloon-men,  infidels, — 
all  to  suddenly  turn  around  and  unite  to  enact  a 
world-wide  Sunday  law  with  a  death  penalty ! 
All  this  is  to  come  quickly,  possibly  in  less  than 
five  years.  Have  these  brethren  lost  their  reason, 
their  common  sense  ?  Such  a  radical,  world-wide 
revolution  in  so  short  a  time  would  be  contrary  to 
all  the  history  of  the  past.  All  natural  causes  and 
the  general  growth  of  new  ideas  must  be  ignored 
and  an  unheard-of  miracle  must  be  assumed,  to 
fulfill  their  predictions.  It  smacks  strongly  of 
fanaticism. 

Instead  of  a  spirit  of  intolerance  and  religious 
persecution  growing  in  the  world,  the  whole  trend 
is  all  the  other  way,  not  only  in  America,  but  the 
world  over.  Freedom  of  thought,  freedom  of 
speech,  freedom  of  the  press,  freedom  of  religious 


RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  69 

and  political  views  are  coming  more  and  more  to 
be  respected.  Persecution  for  religious  views  is 
growing  to  be  more  unpopular,  and  less  and  less 
practiced.  The  rack,  the  inquisition,  torture,  burn- 
ing at  the  stake,  hanging,  etc.,  all  too  common 
centuries  ago,  would  not  now  be  tolerated  in  any 
civilized  country.  Even  despotic  Kussia,  Austria 
and  Spain  have  outgrown  these.  The  death 
penalty,  even  for  murder,  is  coming  largely  to  be 
condemned.  Will  this,  our  free  and  enlightened 
nation,  soon  issue  an  edict  to  slaughter  a  whole 
denomination  of  honest  people  simply  for  believing 
that  Sunday  is  not  a  holy  day  ?  Will  they  then 
all  be  condemned  to  be  killed,  men,  women,  chil- 
dren, simply  for  an  opinion  ?  Can  an  intelligent 
man  believe  that  ? 

The  effort  in  some  states  to  close  the  manufactur- 
ing plants,  shut  up  barber  shops,  close  the  saloon, 
and  restrict  work  on  Sunday,  is  largely  in  the 
interest  of  laboring  men,  and  is  being  demanded 
by  them  that  they  may  have  a  day  of  rest  and 
leisure  with  their  families,  as  well  as  the  wealthy 
class.  It  is  simply  along  the  general  trend  of 
human  progress  to  secure  better  conditions  for  the 
overworked,  toiling  men,  women  and  children. 
This  is  seen  in  the  effort  to  limit  the  ages  under 
which  children  cannot  be  employed  in  factories; 
the  number  of  hours  beyond  which  women  cannot 
be  employed  in  each  week ;  the  closing  of  stores  at 
6  p.  M.  instead  of  working  the  clerks  to  late  hours ; 
the  Saturday  half -holiday ;  and  the  nine  hour,  even 


60     OEIGIN  OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

now  the  eight  hour,  working-day.  Sunday -closing 
is  along  the  same  line,  and  largely  for  the  same 
purpose,  and  is  being  demanded  by  working-people, 
many  of  whom  care  little  for  religion  and  less  for 
the  Church. 

Of  course  Christian  people  favor  it,  as  it  secures 
to  them  the  privilege  of  religious  service.  If  all 
business  was  free  to  operate  on  Sunday,  thousands 
of  Christians  would  be  compelled,  against  their  con- 
science, to  work  that  day  to  keep  their  jobs  and 
support  their  families.  Hence,  the  majority  of  in- 
telligent people,  worldlings  and  Christians,  are 
united  in  wishing  a  Sunday  rest-day  for  the  better- 
ment of  society  in  general.  In  this  there  is  no 
thought  of  persecuting  Adventists.  Most  of  the 
states  already  have  Sunday  laws  forbidding  general 
work  on  that  day ;  yet  Adventists  go  right  on  with 
their  work  freely.  Where,  in  a  few  cases,  some 
have  been  arrested  out  of  spite,  popular  sentiment 
of  judges  and  juries  has  been  opposed  to  it  and  only 
a  nominal  fine,  or  none  at  all,  has  been  made  except 
in  rare  cases  years  ago,  but  none  of  late. 

Take  the  world  over  during  the  seventy  years 
Adventists  have  been  predicting  a  religious  perse- 
cution, and  the  laws,  in  all  nations,  have  gone  just 
the  other  way.  Seventy  years  ago  Christian  mis- 
sionaries were  either  entirely  shut  out  of  a  large 
part  of  the  heathen  and  Mohammedan  countries,  or 
had  to  work  under  the  most  oppressive  restrictions. 
Protestants,  also,  were  so  persecuted  and  hampered 
in  such  countries  as  Russia,  Austria,  Spain,  Mexico 


RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  61 

and  all  the  Catholic  countries  of  South  America, 
that  they  could  do  little.  But  steadily,  through 
these  seventy  years,  the  oppressive  laws  have  been 
modified  and  all  these  countries  are  now  open  to 
the  Gospel  nearly,  or  quite,  as  freely  as  at  home. 
Adventists  themselves  now  have  missions  in  nearly 
every  nation  on  earth  and  are  seldom  molested. 
Even  twenty-five  years  ago  they  could  not  have 
done  this.  All  this  contradicts  what  they  have 
predicted  and  are  still  preaching  "  None  so  blind  as 
those  who  will  not  see." 

February  27,  1915,  Bruce  McEae,  Corresponding 
Secretary  of  the  Actors'  Association  of  New  York, 
reported  as  follows : 

"  This  association,  representing  over  two  thou- 
sand of  the  most  representative  actors  and  actresses, 
desires  to  go  on  record, — that  inasmuch  as  the 
legalizing  of  Sunday  performances  would  be  a  great 
injustice  to  the  members  of  the  theatrical  profes- 
sion, it  would  oppose  it  with  all  the  influence  that 
it  could  command. 

"  The  actor  needs  his  Sunday's  rest  as  does  any 
other  brain  worker  and  when  his  position  is  suffi- 
ciently influential,  he  gets  it."  ' 

Thousands  of  actors  complain  that  their  man- 
agers, when  a  Sunday  law  does  not  prohibit  it,  com- 
pel them  to  work  seven  days  for  six  days'  pay,  and 
that  such  continuous  work  breaks  them  down.  Ad- 
ventists oppose  all  efforts  to  relieve  these  and  hun- 

*  In  the  Bulletin  of  the  New  York  Sabbath  Committee,  April, 
1915. 


62      OKIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

dreds  of  thousands  of  other  overworked  toilers. 
Their  opposition  is  supremely  selfish,  born  of  a  mis- 
guided zeal. 

In  many  states  Barbers' Associations  are  demand- 
ing the  same  as  the  actors  for  the  same  reason. 
Keligious  worship  is  not  the  idea  of  any  of  their 
associations.  What  they  want  is  simply  to  have 
the  privilege  of  a  day  of  rest  like  other  people. 

In  closing  work  on  Sunday  there  is  no  thought  of 
compelling  people  to  go  to  church  or  to  be  religious. 
But  it  is  desired  by  Christians  to  give  people  a 
chance  to  hear  the  Gospel  if  they  wish  to.  We  do 
not  close  the  saloons  to  compel  the  men  to  be  sober, 
but  to  remove  from  them  the  temptation  to  drink. 
Hence  it  is  unfair,  and  untruthful,  to  argue  that 
Sunday  laws  are  made  to  compel  men  to  go  to 
church  or  to  become  religious. 

ADVENTISTS  BACK  DOWN   ON   SUNDAY  WORK 

Recently  Mrs.  White  had  a  revelation  directing 
her  people,  the  world  over,  to  refrain  from  work  on 
Sunday  whenever  the  law  requires  it.  They  will 
all  readily  obey.  How,  then,  can  they  be  perse- 
cuted for  Sunday  work  when  none  of  them  work 
that  day  ?  In  Australia,  a  law  required  Adventists 
to  close  their  publishing  houses  on  Sunday.  For 
three  Sundays  they  did  not  obey.  Then  they  were 
threatened  with  arrest.  What  now  ?  Did  they 
brave  the  law  and  take  the  penalty  as  they  always 
said  they  would  ?  Mrs.  White,  their  divine  oracle, 
fortunately  was  right  there.    Did  she  counsel  mar- 


EELIGIOUS  LIBEETY  63 

tyrdom  ?  Oh,  no !  she  immediately  produced  a 
revelation  directing  them  to  obey  the  law,  close  the 
plant  on  Sunday  and  devote  the  day  to  the  Lord  in 
religious  work  just  as  Sunday-keepers  do.  Here 
are  her  instructions  in  "  Testimonies  to  the  Church," 
Yolume  IX,  Number  37,  published  in  1909.  It  is  a 
square  back  down  from  all  she  had  published  be- 
fore. It  avoids  all  possibility  of  persecution  for 
Sunday  work.  She  says,  "  The  light  given  me  by 
the  Lord  at  a  time  when  we  were  expecting  just 
such  a  crisis  as  you  seem  to  be  approaching  was  that 
when  the  people  were  moved  by  a  power  from  be- 
neath to  enforce  Sunday  observance,  Seventh-Day 
Adventists  were  to  show  their  wisdom  by  refraining 
from  their  ordinary  work  on  that  day,  devoting  it 
to  missionary  effort."  Page  232  :  "  Give  them  no 
occasion  to  call  you  lawbreakers."  "It  will  be 
very  easy  to  avoid  that  difficulty.  Give  Sunday  to 
the  Lord  as  a  day  for  doing  missionary  work." 

"  At  one  time,  those  in  charge  of  our  school  at 
Avondale  [Australia]  inquired  of  me,  saying, '  What 
shall  we  do  ?  The  officers  of  the  law  have  been  com- 
missioned to  arrest  those  working  on  Sunday.'  I 
replied,  *  It  will  be  very  easy  to  avoid  that  diffi- 
culty. Give  Sunday  to  the  Lord  as  a  day  for  doing 
missionary  work.  Take  the  students  out  to  hold 
meetings  in  different  places,  and  to  do  medical  mis- 
sionary work.  They  will  find  the  people  at  home, 
and  will  have  a  splendid  opportunity  to  present  the 
truth.  This  way  of  sjpending  Sunday  is  always 
acceptaUe  to  the  Lord ' "  (page  238). 


64:      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

It  will  be  readily  seen  that  Mrs.  White  now 
directs  her  people  to  keep  Sunday  exactly  as  all 
conscientious  Sunday  observers  do ;  that  is,  in  hold- 
ing religious  meetings  and  doing  religious  work ! 
"  They  are  to  refrain  fi'om  their  ordinary  work  on 
that  day.  Give  Sunday  to  the  Lord  as  a  day  of 
doing  missionary  work.  This  way  of  spending 
Sunday  is  always  accejjtable  to  the  Lord^ 

A  prospect  of  arrest  suddenly  converted  Mrs. 
White  to  a  zealous  religious  observance  of  Sunday. 
"  Give  the  day  to  the  Lord."  And  then  especially 
notice :  "  This  w^ay  of  spending  Sunday  is  always 
acceptable  to  the  Lord."  Good  and  true.  Now  if 
it  is  acceptable  to  the  Lord  from  Adventists,  it  must 
be  acceptable  to  the  Lord  from  Methodists,  Baptists, 
etc.     Why  not  ? 

But  the  point  is  this :  If  Adventists  follow  this 
advice,  how  will  they  be  persecuted  for  working  on 
Sunday  ?  What  becomes  of  the  prediction  that  an 
edict  will  be  issued  to  kill  them  all  for  violating  a 
Sunday  law  ?  That  was  what  Adventists  have  al- 
ways taught  before.  But  in  1909  they  were  directed 
to  observe  Sunday  strictly  and  obey  the  law  ! 

If  the  prospect  of  simply  a  fine  will  cause  Ad- 
ventists to  obey  the  law  and  refrain  from  work  on 
Sunday,  would  not  the  prospect  of  a  death  penalty 
quickly  induce  them  to  obey  ?  Surely.  It  shows 
that  their  theory  breaks  down  when  really  tested. 
Then  if  Baptists,  Methodists,  etc.,  have  the  mark  of 
the  beast  because  they  "  give  Sunday  to  the  Lord  " 
in  religious  service,  why  will  not  Adventists  also 


EELIGIOUS   LIBERTY  65 

have  it  if  thejgave  the  day  to  the  Lord  in  the  same 
way  ?    Of  course  they  will. 

A  STRICT  SUNDAY  LAW  WOULD  IN  NO  WAY  IN- 
TERFERE WITH  THE  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  OF 
ADVENTISTS 

The  Adventists  publish  a  Liberty  Magazine 
wholly  devoted  to  an  effort  to  prove  that  a  Sunday 
law  would  restrict  their  religious  liberty  and  require 
them  to  violate  their  conscience.  Their  position  is 
untenable,  their  arguments  fallacious.  It  would  do 
no  such  thing.  Mrs.  White  herself,  as  above,  has 
proved  their  contention  untrue.  How  ?  She 
directs  them  to  obey  the  law  and  do  no  work  on 
Sunday.  Would  she  advise  them  to  violate  their 
conscience,  disobey  God?  And  neglect  a  sacred 
duty  to  avoid  a  fine  ?  Surely  not.  Then  she 
does  not  regard  it  as  a  religious  duty  to  work  on 
Sunday,  nor  do  they,  or  they  would  not  advocate 
what  she  directs. 

Why  does  an  Adventist  work  on  Sunday  ?  Does 
he  do  it  as  an  act  of  worship  ?  No,  he  works  for 
money,  for  the  financial  gain  there  is  in  it.  That  is 
all.  If  an  Adventist  was  receiving  two  dollars  per 
day  for  Sunday  work,  and  should  be  offered  four 
dollars  per  day  to  simply  remain  at  home,  would 
he  not  accept  the  offer  ?  Yes  readily,  and  why 
shouldn't  he  ?  He  violates  none  of  his  religious 
principles.  He  works  to  get  money,  and  sits  still 
to  get  more,  that  is  all.  A  law  forbidding  manual 
labor  on  Sunday  deprives  him  of  no  religious  privi- 


66     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

leges.  At  home  he  can  read  his  Bible  or  any  re- 
ligious book  ;  or  write  articles,  or  pray  ;  he  can  go 
to  any  church  ;  or  to  his  own  ;  he  can  hold  public 
meetings  and  teach  his  doctrines  freely ;  he  can  go 
from  house  to  house  with  his  literature  and  teach 
his  doctrines  there.  He  is  not  required  to  attend 
church  where  he  does  not  care  to,  nor  profess  any 
creed  he  does  not  believe,  nor  deny  what  he  does  be- 
lieve. How  then  would  a  law  prohibiting  work  on 
Sunday  interfere  with  his  religious  liberty  ?  That 
is  only  a  scarecrow  of  straw  of  their  own  making 
and  that  is  all. 

The  saloon-keeper  wants  to  keep  his  saloon  open 
on  Sunday.  What  for?  As  a  religious  duty? 
To  worship  God  ?  He  does  it  for  gain,  for  business. 
He  says  the  law  restricts  his  personal  liberty. 
Theatrical  and  moving  picture  proprietors  insist  on 
conducting  their  business  on  Sunday.  Do  they  do 
it  as  a  religious  duty  ?  ISTo.  IS^either  do  Advent- 
ists  work  Sunday  as  an  act  of  worship,  or  as  a  re- 
ligious duty.  It  is  a  business  proposition  and  that 
is  all. 

Then  every  one  knows  that  Saturday  is  observed 
the  world  over  by  the  Adventists  as  their  sacred 
day  for  religious  worship.  Any  law  which  does 
not  interfere  with  worshipping  on  Saturday  has  no 
bearing  whatever  upon  the  religious  liberty  of 
Seventh-Day  worshippers.  But  a  Sunday  closing 
statute  in  no  way  applies  to  Saturday  any  more 
than  it  does  to  Friday.  There  is  no  complaint 
coming    for    Saturday-observing    Jews,    or    Fri- 


RELIGIOUS   LIBERTY  67 

day-observing  Mohammedans  that  a  Sunday  law 
infringes  upon  their  religious  liberties.  The  Ad- 
vent is  ts  will  be  just  as  free  to  worship  on  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath  under  the  most  stringent  Sunday  law 
as  they  are  now  in  California,  where  at  present 
there  is  no  Sunday  legislation.  And  this  they  know 
right  well.  It  is  illogical  and  unreasonable,  and 
wholly  without  excuse,  for  them  to  oppose  a  Sun- 
day law  on  the  ground  that  it  will  deprive  them  of 
their  religious  liberties. 

ONLY  THEIR  CIVIL  LIBERTY  ABRIDGED 

All  that  Adventists  can  truthfully  claim  is  that  a 
Sunday  law  would  abridge  their  civil  liheHy — their 
personal  freedom.  Here  their  arguments  lie  very 
close  along  the  line  of  the  saloon  men  and  liquor 
v&QY^—fersonal  liberty.  But  any  person  who 
chooses  to  live  among  other  people  has  to  pay  for 
that  privilege  by  giving  up  many  personal  rights 
which  he  might  exercise  freely  if  he  lived  by  him- 
self alone.  Suppose  a  man  with  a  family  lived  on 
an  island  away  from  all  others,  as  Kobinson  Crusoe 
did.  He  could  go  naked,  go  loaded  with  firearms, 
get  drunk,  smoke  and  spit  tobacco-juice  anywhere, 
build  his  house  anywhere,  of  any  kind  of  material, 
make  all  the  noise  he  chooses,  let  his  cattle  run 
loose,  let  his  children  go  uneducated,^hunt  or  fish  all 
seasons  of  the  year  for  any  kind  of  game  or  fish, 
and  do  many  other  things  unmolested. 

Now  let  him  move  into  a  civilized  farming  com- 
munity.   He  would  immediately  have  to  sacrifice 


68      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

all  these  rights.  He  could  not  go  naked  nor  keep 
his  children  out  of  school,  nor  let  his  cattle  run 
loose,  nor  hunt  or  fish  out  of  season,  nor  leave  a 
dead  animal  by  the  roadside,  etc. 

When  he  goes  to  the  city,  he  must  not  spit  on  the 
sidewalk,  nor  get  drunk,  nor  beg  on  the  street,  nor 
drive  on  the  left  side  of  the  street,  nor  cross  a  main 
street  without  a  signal  from  the  police,  nor  turn  a 
corner  only  in  such  a  way,  nor  drive  only  so  fast, 
nor  leave  his  team  there  only  so  long,  nor  leave 
them  un  blanketed  in  the  cold,  nor  allow  his  boy  to 
work  in  the  shop  under  a  certain  age,  nor  his 
daughter  to  work  in  a  shop  more  than  so  many 
hours  per  week,  and  many  more  such  things. 

This  is  simply  what  is  called  "  Police  Power " 
delegated  to  every  state,  through  all  its  agencies, 
both  general  and  local,  to  preserve  order,  regulate 
intercourse  between  citizens,  and  to  insure  to  each 
the  lawful  enjoyment  of  his  rights. 

The  civil  power  is  the  power  of  arbitrary  force  to 
compel  men  who  will  not  be  righteous  to  at  least 
be  civil,  that  men  may  live  together  in  peace  and 
quietness.     (See  Appendix  A,  page  261.) 

In  return  for  the  personal  restrictions  which  are 
necessarily  placed  on  each  member  of  society,  this 
protects  his  property,  his  person,  and  his  personal 
freedom  as  far  as  consistent  with  the  rights  of 
others  and  the  general  good  of  society.  Polygamy 
is  a  religious  tenet  of  the  Utah  Mormons  which 
they  hold  as  strongly  as  Adventists  hold  the  Sab- 
bath.   Here  the  law  has  restricted  their  "  religious 


EELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  69 

liberty."  Would  Adventists  leave  them  free,  any- 
where and  everywhere,  with  their  many  wives  ?  In 
India,  mothers  threw  their  children  into  the  river 
as  a  religious  duty,  and  wives  were  burned  alive 
with  husbands  when  they  died.  British  law  stopped 
this  "  religious  freedom."  What  do  Adventists  say 
to  that  ? 

All  this  is  the  price  a  person  must  pay  for  the 
privilege  of  being  a  citizen  with  other  fellow  citi- 
zens whose  rights  and  conveniences  must  be  con- 
sulted as  well  as  his  own.  This  is  a  universal  law, 
recognized  among  all  civilized  people.  Without  it, 
we  would  have  lawlessness  and  anarchy.  What  is 
for  the  best  interests  of  the  whole  must  be  con- 
sidered, not  simply  the  convenience  of  the  few. 
This  is  democracy  and  is  just  and  right.  It  is  the 
word  of  God  too.  Paul  says :  "  For  none  of  us 
liveth  to  himself  "  (Eom.  xiv.  7).  "  Look  not  every 
man  on  his  own  things  but  every  man  also  on  the 
things  of  others  "  (Phil.  ii.  4).  "  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself  "  (Mark  xii.  31).  A  Chris- 
tian will  sacrifice  much  rather  than  annoy  his 
neighbor.  The  one,  the  few,  the  minority,  must 
harmonize  with  the  majority  as  far  as  they  can 
without  sacrificing  principles.  An  Adventist  sac- 
rifices no  moral  or  religious  principle  when  he  ab- 
stains from  manual  work  on  Sunday.  He  foregoes 
a  business  gain  for  the  general  wish  and  social  good 
of  the  majority.  If  the  law  required  Adventists  to 
work  on  Saturday^  that  would  be  a  different  thing. 
That  would  require  them  to  violate  their  conscience 


To      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

and  break  the  law  of  God  as  they  believe.  But  no 
such  thing  is  proposed  or  thought  of. 

Besides,  there  is  a  growing  tendency  on  the  part 
of  our  state  legislatures  to  exempt  in  the  Sunday 
laws,  all  who  observe  some  other  day  as  a  day  of 
worship  and  who  refrain  from  business  and  labor 
on  that  day,  from  the  Sunday  prohibitions.  But, 
strange  to  say,  Adventists  oppose  these  exemptions 
made  for  their  protection  as  much  as  any  other  part 
of  the  Sunday  bill.  It  is  a  proof  that  they  are  not 
sincere  in  grounding  their  opposition  to  Sunday 
legislation  upon  the  protection  of  their  civil  and 
religious  rights.  Many  of  the  states  have  already 
adopted  such  exemption  clauses. 

Adventists  should  be  the  first  to  recognize  the 
great  value  of  a  rest  day  each  week  for  all  men. 
To  them,  resting  on  the  Sabbath  once  a  week  is 
the  most  important  of  all  duties.  If  a  weekly  Sab- 
bath is  of  so  much  benefit  to  them,  then  it  will  be 
so  to  all  others  and  they  should  aid  them  to  secure 
such  a  weekly  rest  day.  But  they  cannot,  and  do 
not,  expect  to  win  the  majority  over  to  give  up 
Sunday  and  keep  Saturday  instead.  A  few  in  each 
community  is  all  they  have  ever  succeeded  in  get- 
ting. Do  they  wish  all  the  rest  of  the  great  ma- 
jority to  have  no  Sabbath  ?  Their  whole  effort  and 
influence  is  that  way — to  have  a  Sabbathless  and 
churchless  community.  They  confuse  thousands  of 
people  who,  after  that,  keep  no  day.  They  argue 
that  every  Sunday  law  is  unconstitutional.  They 
bitterly  oppose  any  and  every  Sunday  restriction. 


RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  71 

They  argue  that  all  business  should  continue  on 
Sunday  the  same  as  on  any  week  day.  They  would 
have  saloons  open  on  Sunday  the  same  as  on  Mon- 
day. They  all  work  themselves  Sunday  and  ridi- 
cule Sunday  keepers  as  pagans  and  papists.  If  their 
influence  prevailed,  society  would  soon  be  demoral- 
ized. Adventists  strongly  oppose  three  of  the 
greatest  bulwarks  of  our  government,  namely :  the 
public  school,  the  churches,  and  a  Sunday  rest-day. 

Consider  a  moment :  Sunday  is  just  as  long  as 
Saturday — to  a  minute.  It  affords  every  advantage 
that  Saturday  does,  physical  rest,  mental  rest,  so- 
cial privileges,  time  for  reading  the  Bible  and  re- 
ligious work,  prayers,  attendance  at  church  and 
Bible  school,  song  service,  etc.  There  is  no  differ- 
ence in  the  advantages  of  the  one  day  over  the 
other,  so  far  as  the  use  of  the  day  is  concerned. 
But  Sunday  has  the  great  advantage  of  being  the 
day  on  which  the  people  generally  rest  and  so  the 
day  is  quiet.  Moreover,  the  vast  majority  of  those 
who  observe  Sunday  conscientiously  suppose  they 
are  keeping  the  day  in  obedience  to  the  Lord's  will. 
They  keep  it  as  "  the  Sabbath  "  just  the  same  as 
Adventists  keep  Saturday. 

Their  motive  is  to  serve  God.  They  have  not 
the  remotest  idea  of  reverencing  the  Papacy,  or  the 
sun,  or  paganism.  As  God  looks  at  the  heart,  at 
the  motive,  does  He  not  accept  such  sincere  serv- 
ice ?  Paul  says  they  that "  regard  the  day  unto  the 
Lord  "  (Rom.  xiv.  6)  are  acceptable  to  God.  Ad- 
ventists do  no  more  than  this  in  keeping  Saturday. 


^2     ORIGIN  OP  THE  LORD's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

In  keeping  Sunday  we  preserve  the  model  of  the 
seven  days  of  creation,  and  thus  are  reminded  of 
the  creation  as  plainly  as  Adventists  are.  Added 
to  this  we  also  commemorate  the  resurrection,  the 
key-note  of  the  entire  Gospel,  Here  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  fails  to  remind  us  of  anything  in  the 
Gospel.  For  twenty-eight  years  I  myself  kept 
conscientiously  the  seventh  day  unto  the  Lord. 
Now,  for  twenty-eight  years,  I  have  kept  Sunday 
unto  the  Lord.  The  first  was  dry  duty, — bondage : 
the  last  is  privilege — liberty,  and  I  like  it  the  best. 

SEVENTH  DAY  ADVENTISTS  USE  POLITICAL  METH- 
ODS WHICH  THEY  CONDEMN  IN  ALL  OTHERS 

Adventists  condemn  in  strong  terms  the  efforts 
of  Catholics  and  the  Federation  of  Churches  to  in- 
fluence legislatures  and  legislation  in  their  favor. 
They  are  constantly  denouncing  both  these  relig- 
ious bodies  for  trying  to  influence  men  in  office  to 
secure  the  law  they  wish,  or  to  defeat  laws  they  do 
not  favor.  They  condemn  this  as  using  worldly 
and  unchristian  methods  to  further  religious  views. 
But,  strange  to  say,  Adventists  do  the  very  same 
thing  themselves  and  they  use  every  possible  means 
in  their  power  to  accomplish  it.  They  keep  trained 
and  paid  men  in  every  conference  to  watch  every 
state  legislature  and  congress  for  any  Sunday  legis- 
lation. These  men  are  furnished  with  an  abun- 
dance of  specially  prepared  literature  and  are  on 
the  alert  to  personally  influence  every  man  in  office 
from  the  President  down  to  the  mayor  and  common 


RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  73 

voters.  They  boast  that  they  have  defeated  many 
a  Sunday  bill  in  Congress  and  in  the  states. 

They  publish  a  Liberty  Magazine  for  this  express 
purpose.  In  proof  read  the  following :  "  Elder  E.  L. 
Cardey,  religious  liberty  secretary  of  the  Greater 
New  York  conference,  writes  that  the  executive  com- 
mittee has  voted  to  send  the  current  number  of  Lib- 
erty to  500  judges  and  attorneys  in  that  conference." 

"The  District  of  Columbia  conference  has  de- 
cided to  unite  with  the  JSTorth  American  Division 
Keligious  Liberty  Department  in  circulating  900 
copies  of  Liberty  each  quarter  among  the  United 
States  senators,  representatives,  and  other  moulders 
of  public  opinion  at  the  Capital  of  our  nation.  If 
you  wish  to  help  in  this  good  work,  it  will  cost  you 
only  $1.00  to  send  Liberty  to  five  of  these  persons 
of  influence  for  one  year.  Send  the  order  to  your 
tract  society.  We  will  furnish  the  names  of  legis- 
lators, public-school  teachers,  attorneys,  judges,  as 
you  may  prefer.  Send  this  issue  of  Liberty  to  all 
lawyers  and  judges  of  our  conference."  ' 

This  gives  a  fair  idea  of  what  they  are  trying  to 
do.  Every  member  of  every  church  is  urged  to  do 
his  utmost  along  this  line,  and  largely  he  does  it. 
No  Protestant  Church,  not  even  Catholics,  work  as 
zealously  along  this  line  as  Adventists  do.  And 
they  have  the  most  efficient  organization  in  the 
world  to  carry  it  out.  It  shows  what  they  will  do, 
if  they  ever  become  numerous  enough  to  have  po- 
litical influence. 

*  Adventist  Eeviexu,  Jan.  14,  1915. 


Ill 

ADVENTISTS  ASSERT  THAT  THE  CATHOLIC 

CHUECH  CHANGED  THE  SABBATH  ;  BUT 

WHICH  CATHOLIC  CHUECH  1 

ADYENTISTS  repeat  this  assertion,  in  vari- 
ous ways,  so  constantly  that  their  people 
believe  it  to  be  absolutely  true.  Their 
children  are  taught  this  as  thoroughly  as  they  are 
the  Bible.  Any  one  at  all  familiar  with  their 
teachings  needs  no  proof  that  they  make  the 
above  claim. 

Mrs.  White  says:  "The  Pope  had  changed  it 
[the  Sabbath]  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of 
the  week."  ^  The  following  is  from  the  Signs  of 
Times  Magazine,  October,  1914 : 

"  Sunday  is  the  first  day  of  the  week  and  its  ob- 
servance belongs  to  the  Catholic  Church." 

"  Every  one  who  accepts  the  Sunday  institution 
as  a  Sabbath  thereby  accepts  an  institution  of  the 
Catholic  Church." 

"  The  Catholic  Church  says :  *  By  my  divine 
power  I  have  abolished  the  Sabbath  day  and  com- 
mand you  to  keep  the  first  day  of  the  week  !  And 
lo,  the  entire  civilized  world  bows  down  in  reverent 
obedience  to  the  command  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church.' " 

'  "  Early  Writings,"  p.  26. 

74 


WHICH  CATHOLIC   CHURCH  ?  T5 

But  there  are  two  damaging  objections  to  this 
theory. 

First:  Adventists  assume  and  argue  on  the  as- 
sumption that  the  "  Catholic  Church  "  began  to  be 
formed  about  three  hundred  years  after  Christ. 
Hence,  if  the  Catholic  Church  did  ch?tnge  the  Sab- 
bath, the  change  could  not  have  been  made  before 
that  late  date.  Then  they  easily  find,  and  gladly 
quote,  a  large  number  of  Catholic  catechisms.  Cath- 
olic priests,  and  Catholic  challenges  to  Protestants, 
all  boasting  that  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  changed 
the  Sabbath.  Adventists  say  that  this  settles  the 
question. 

Second :  But  in  this  they  ignore,  fail  to  state, 
another  claim  which  all  these  same  Catholia  au- 
thorities always  make  just  as  strongly,  namely, 
that  their  Holy  Catholic  Church  extends  back  to, 
and  began  with,  the  apostles,  and  that  the  change 
was  made  by  them.  If  Adventists  accept  one 
claim  of  the  Catholics,  then,  to  be  fair,  they  should 
accept  both.  But  this  would  overthrow  their  argu- 
ment 

Now  the  simple  fact  is,  the  original  "  Catholic  " 
Church,  which  did  actually  begin  with  the  apostles 
where  the  day  was  changed,  is  not  the  same  Church 
as  the  Koman  Catholic  Church,  or  the  Papacy,  of  a 
much  later  date.  The  ground  on  which  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  makes  the  false  claim  that  she 
changed  the  Sabbath  is  by  making  the  further  false 
claim  that  the  present  Roman  Church  extends  back 
to,  and  includes  the  apostles,  who,  they  readily 


76      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

agree,  made  the  change.  Both  these  facts  are 
abundantly  proved  by  the  testimony  of  Catholics 
themselves.  It  is  by  ignoring  these  fundamental 
facts  that  Adventists  can  use  quotations  from  Cath- 
olics as  they  do.  Their  lay  members  and  the  com- 
mon people  do  not  know  this,  and  hence  are  easily 
deceived. 

No  class  of  people  denounces  the  Koman  Church 
more  strongly  than  Adventists  do.  They  pro- 
nounce them  deceivers,  false  teachers,  perverters 
of  history,  and  their  boastful  claims  they  repudiate 
as  worthless,  all  except  on  the  change  of  the  Sab- 
bath. Here  they  hold  up,  and  publish  to  the  world, 
her  mere  assertion  as  settling  the  question  beyond 
dispute.  The  Catholics  offer  no  proof  of  their 
claim  that  they  changed  the  day.  They  assert 
that  they  did  and  leave  it  there.  Adventists 
gladly  accept  this  without  any  proof.  Consider 
now :  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  makes  all  the 
following  boastful  claims : 

1.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  the  only  true 
Church. 

2.  St.  Peter  was  the  first  Pope  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church. 

3.  The  present  Pope  of  Rome  is  the  lineal  di- 
vinely appointed  successor  of  St.  Peter. 

4.  The  Pope  of  Rome  is  the  Vicar  of  Jesus 
Christ  upon  earth. 

5.  The  Pope  is  infallible. 

6.  The  Pope  holds  the  keys  to  heaven. 

7.  All,  including  Adventists,  outside  of  the 
Catholic  Church  are  heretics. 


WHICH  CATHOLIC   CHUKCH  ?  77 

8.  Protestants  are  indebted  to  Catholics  for  the 
Holy  Scriptures  as  it  is  given  to  them. 

9.  Catholic  priests  have  authority  to  forgive 
sins. 

10.  The  Eoman  Catholic  Church  changed  the 
Sabbath  from  the  seventh  day  to  Sunday,  the  first 
day. 

The  Catholic  Church  strongly  claims  all  these 
ten  items.  What  do  Seventh-Day  Adventists  say 
to  these  assertions  ?  They  quickly  deny  all  the 
first  nine,  say  they  are  all  lies,  without  any  foun- 
dation in  fact.  But  when  you  come  to  the  tenth 
one,  the  change  of  the  Sabbath,  then  Adventists 
fall  over  each  other  to  accept  every  word  of  this 
as  the  infallible  truth.  It  settles  the  question  be- 
yond dispute.  "  The  Catholic  Church  just  owns  it 
right  up  "  that  it  did  really  do  the  job  ! ! 

To  illustrate :  Adventists  bring  their  chief  wit- 
ness into  court.  But  when  he  is  sworn  they  ac- 
knowledge that  nine-tenths  of  his  testimony  is  a 
lie,  is  perjury,  but  one-tenth  of  what  he  swears  to 
is  true.  On  this  they  claim  they  have  won  their 
case !     Sela ! 

Any  judge  would  quickly  throw  out  of  court 
such  testimony  as  worthless,  yet  this  is  the  witness, 
and  the  only  witness,  Adventists  can  produce  say- 
ing that  the  Koman  Church  changed  the  Sabbath. 
See  any  of  their  publications  on  this  point. 

We  will  now  examine  this  witness. 

The  Koman  Catholic  Church  claims  to  extend 
back  to  the  apostles  and  include  them.     This  is  so 


78      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

well  known  that  no  proof  need  be  offered.  Yet  I 
will  give  a  few  quotations.  Cardinal  Gibbons  is 
the  highest  Catholic  authority  in  America.  His 
work  of  480  pages,  "  The  Faith  of  Our  Fathers,"  is 
written  expressly  to  prove  that  the  modern  Roman 
Catholic  Church  dates  back  to  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles and  has  continued  in  an  unbroken  succession 
down  to  the  present  time.  He  claims  that  St. 
Peter  was  the  first  Pope  and  that  his  office  and 
authority  have  descended  unbroken  through  all  the 
Popes  to  the  present  one.  On  page  68  he  says: 
"  The  true  Church  must  be  Apostolical.  Her  min- 
isters must  derive  their  power  from  the  apostles  by 
an  unbroken  succession."  On  page  67  he  gives  a 
table  of  the  true  Church,  the  Catholic,  thus  : 

Name  of  Sect    Place  of  Origin       Founder       Year    Authority 
Catholic  Church      Jerusalem      Jesus  Christ      33  New 

Testament 

On  pages  68  and  69  he  says  all  the  Protestant 
sects  "  came  fifteen  hundred  years  too  late  to  have 
any  pretensions  to  be  called  the  Apostolic  Church." 
"  The  Catholic  Church,  on  the  contrary,  can  easily 
vindicate  the  title  of  Apostolic,  because  she  derives 
her  origin  from  the  Apostles."  "  Thus  we  go  back 
from  century  to  century  till  we  come  to  Peter,  the 
first  Bishop  of  Eome,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and 
Yicar  of  Christ."  On  page  87  he  says :  "  She  is 
the  only  Church  which  is  acknowledged  to  have 
existed  from  the  beginning."  Again,  page  167, 
"  St.  Peter,  the  first  Pope  in  the  long,  unbroken 
line  of  Sovereign  Pontiffs." 


WHICH  CATHOLIC  CHUKCH  ?  79 

The  "  Catholic  Dictionary,"  Article  «  Catholic 
Church,"  says :  "  General  or  universal.  It  was 
applied  to  the  true  Church  spread  throughout  the 
world."  "  The  present  Catholic  Eoman  Church  is 
the  Church  founded  by  Christ." 

I  have  just  examined  a  large  number  of  Catholic 
works  from  the  smallest  catechism  up  to  their  great 
"  Encyclopedia,"  and  all  agree  in  contending  that 
the  Catholic  Church  goes  back  to  the  apostles  and 
includes  them  with  Peter  as  the  first  Pope.     Oii^\ 
this  assumption  they  found  the  claim  that  what- 
ever was  done  by  the  apostles  was  done  by  the  \ 
Roman  Catholic  Church.     Marie  this  fact  well,  for   ; 
on  this  claim  rests  the  assertion  of  Catholics  that    ! 
their  Church  changed  the  Sabbath. 

The  Fope.     The  name,  "  Pope,"  simply  means 
father.     For  centuries  after  Christ  that  was  the 
common  name  for  all  priests,  both  in  the  Roman 
and  Greek  Chm^ch.     It  meant  then  the  same  as 
"  pastor  "  now  means  with  us.     Later,  in  the  West, 
it  Avas  gradually  restricted  to  bishops  only.     In 
1073,  Gregory  YII,  in  a  council,  prohibited  the  use  \ 
of  the  title  by  any  one  except  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  j 
So,  then,  the  "  Pope,"  as  that  term  is  now  used,  did  ! 
not  exist  till  hundreds  of  years  after  the  time  fixed 
by  Adventists  for  the  change  of  the  Sabbath.     So 
it  could  not  have  been  changed  by  the  "  Pope." 

The  term,  "  The  Catholic  Church,"  is  now  com-  ' 
monly  used  to  mean  the  Church  of  Rome  only,  j 
with  the  Pope  at  its  head,  and  it  is  now  claimed  by 
that  Church  as  belonging  exclusively  to  itself,  ex- 


80      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

eluding  all  others  from  that  name.  The  Koman 
Church  also  claims  this  title  exclusively  clear  back 
to  the  apostles,  including  them  as  the  founders  of 
their  "  Catholic  Church  "  with  Peter  as  their  first 
Pope.  But  this  claim  is  wholly  unfounded  and 
contrary  to  the  plainest  facts  of  history.  The 
"  Catholic  Church "  is  one  thing,  the  "  Koman 
Church  "  another  thing,  and  the  "  Papacy  "  is  still 
another  thing,  each  differing  from  the  other. 

"Catholic"  means  general,  or  universal.  Be- 
ginning with  the  apostles,  or  soon  after,  this  was 
used  by  Christians  the  world  over  to  distinguish 
the  Christian  Church  from  the  Jewish  Church, 
which  was  national  and  local.  Later,  when 
heresies  came  up,  "  Catholic  "  meant  all  orthodox 
believers  everywhere,  but  excluded  the  heretics. 
This  continued  for  over  1,000  years  till  the  final 
split  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches, 
A.  D.  1052.  Then  the  Eastern  Church  assumed  the 
title  of  "The  Greek  Oriental  Orthodox  Catholic 
Church,"  while  the  "Western  Church  still  continued 
to  use  the  common  name  "  Catholic."  The  "  'New 
International  Dictionary"  says :  "  Catholic :  1.  Uni- 
versal or  general ;  of,  or  pertaining  to  the  Church 
universal,  designating  or  pertaining  to,  the  ancient, 
undivided  Church,  or  a  Church  or  Churches  his- 
torically continuous  with  and  claiming  to  be  a  true 
representation  of  it,  hence,  of  the  true  Apostolic 
Church;  orthodox.  The  term  Catholic  originally 
designated  the  whole  body  of  Christian  believers, 
was  officially  appropriated  as  a  title  by  the  Western 


WHICH   CATHOLIC   CHUliCH  ?  81 

Church  at  the  time  of  its  separation  from  the 
Eastern  Church  [1052],  which  assumed  the  title  of 
Orthodox.  After  the  Eeformation,  the  Church  of 
Eome,  or  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  asserted  its  ex- 
clusive right  to  the  title  and  although  this  right 
has  not  been  recognized  by  the  Eeformed  Churches, 
specially  that  of  the  Anglican  communion,  in 
practice  the  title  is  often  so  restricted." 

This  is  the  truth  exactly  as  to  the  historical  use 
of  the  term  "Catholic  Church."  It  began  with 
the  Apostolic  Church  and  was  used  by  the  un- 
divided, or  whole  Church,  during  all  the  early 
centuries  for  over  a  thousand  years. 

I  have  before  me  a  book  entitled,  "  Catholic 
Principles,"  by  Eev.  J.  W.  Westcott,  Episcopalian. 
In  this  he  gives  abundant  historical  proof  showing 
that  the  term,  "  Catholic  Church,"  began  with  the 
apostles,  or  immediately  after,  and  embraced  all 
true  Christians  of  orthodox  faith  in  all  the  world. 
It  continued  to  be  so  used  till  the  eleventh  century 
when  the  Eastern,  or  Greek  Church,  separated 
from  the  Western,  or  Eoman  Church,  in  a.  d.  1052. 
Then  Eome  assumed  to  itself  the  term  Catholic, 
contrary  to  its  former  use  through  the  first  eleven 
centuries.  Mr.  Westcott  says :  "  To  start  with,  we 
must  be  careful  not  to  be  misled  by  the  use  of 
names,  phrases,  and  expressions,  which  meant  one 
thing  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  and  mean 
quite  a  different  thing  in  the  mouths  of  modern 
Eoman  Catholics  in  the  present  century"  (page 
206).     "  When  Protestants  use  the  word  Catholic, 


82      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

they  generally  refer  to  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church; 
and  it  is  often  a  matter  of  great  surprise  to  them  to 
find  that  a  hundred  million  of  men  claim  to  be 
Catholics,  who  are  not  Roman  Catholics  at  all " 
(page  55).  Again,  he  says,  and  correctly  too : 
"  The  quotations  we  have  now  given  from  the 
early  Christian  writers  prove  beyond  question  that 
both  in  name  and  theory  the  Christian  Church  was 
Catholic  from  the  very  first  Apostolic  days " 
(page  65). 

Thus  Johnson's  "New  Universal  Cyclopedia," 
Article  "  Catholic  Church  "  :  "  The  phrase,  Catho- 
lic Church,  is  equivalent  to  *  universal  Church,'  and 
cannot  properly  be  limited  to  any  particular  sect 
or  body.  It  was  once  employed  to  distinguish  the 
Christian  Church  from  the  Jewish,  the  latter  being 
restricted  to  a  single  nation,  while  the  former  was 
intended  for  the  world." 

Hence  we  must  remember  that  the  "Catholic 
Church  "  for  over  ten  hundred  years  included  all 
orthodox,  or  evangelical.  Christians  the  world  over. 
The  great  Eastern,  or  Greek  Church,  which  was 
founded  by  the  apostles,  and  was  never  ruled  over 
by  the  Koman  Church,  was  the  first  and  by  far  the 
largest  part  of  the  Catholic,  or  universal.  Church. 
It  bore  that  title  before  the  Koman  Catholic  Papacy 
existed.  Hence,  it  is  true  that  the  Catholic  Church 
was  founded  by  Christ  and  the  apostles  ;  but  this 
was  very  different  from  the  Koman  Church  or 
Papacy  of  centuries  later.  Hence,  when  cor- 
rectly understood,  we  have  no  objection  to  saying 


WHICH  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  ?  83 

that  the  Sabbath  was  changed  by  the  ^^  Catholic 
Ckurch^'^  for  the  change  was  made  by  the  apostles, 
the  founders  of  the  "Catholic,"  or  universal 
Church. 

Eome  is  not  the  "  Mother  Church."  That  title 
belongs  to  the  great  Eastern  Greek  Catholic 
Church,  founded  by  the  apostles  long  before  the 
Koman  Catholic  Church  existed.  That  Church  now 
numbers  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  and  is  the 
original "  Catholic  Church."  She  was  the  "  Mother 
Church,"  and  the  Eoman  Church  for  three  hundred 
years  was  only  a  mission  church,  founded  and  sup- 
ported by  the  Eastern  Greek  Church.  This  fact  is 
abundantly  supported  by  history. 

Thus  Eight  Eev.  Bishop  Eaphael,  of  Brook- 
lyn, N.  Y.,  Bishop  of  the  Eastern  Greek  Church, 
writes  me,  March  30,  1914  : 

"  The  official  name  of  our  Church  is  ^  The  Holy 
Orthodox  Catholic  Apostolic  Church.'  It  was 
founded  in  the  time  of  the  apostles  and  by  the 
twelve  apostles,  Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the 
chief  corner-stone.  Beginning  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  (Acts  ii.)  our  Church  has  never  been  sub- 
ject to  the  Eoman  Church,  or  to  the  Latin  Popes, 
or  to  the  Papacy.  The  Eoman  Church  herself  was 
a  Greek  Mission  for  nearly  300  years,  and  the 
Greek  language  was  the  tongue  in  which  the 
Liturgy,  or  Mass,  was  said  in  the  city  of  Eome. 
The  Church  of  the  East  has  never  from  the  first 
been  known  by  any  other  name  than  Catholic,  nor 
has  she  set  aside  this  title  in  any  official  document, 


84     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

It  is  her  inalienable  property  as  the  mother  Church 
of  Christendom." 

The  Catholic  Church  was  founded  in  the  East  by 
the  apostles  thirty  years  before  Paul  visited  Rome. 
Pentecost  was  a.  d.  33,  and  Paul  did  not  visit  Eome 
till  A.  D.  65.  Compare  dates  in  Acts  ii.  and  xxviii. 
margin.  Hence,  the  original  "  Catholic  Apostolic 
Church  "  was  not  the  Eoman  Church  at  all,  but  the 
Greek  Church  in  the  early  days  of  the  apostles. 
All  the  apostles  preached  in  Greek  and  all  the  New 
Testament,  except  Matthew,  was  written  in  Greek — 
not  a  book  in  Latin.  Most  of  the  books  were  writ- 
ten before  Paul  or  Peter  visited  Eome.  See  Acts, 
etc.,  for  dates.  Eoman  Catholic  authorities  all 
locate  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  back  with  the 
early  work  of  the  apostles.  This  the  follow- 
ing chapter  will  show.  If  they  themselves  are 
correct  on  this,  as  they  surely  are,  then  the  change 
of  the  day  was  not  made  by  the  Eoman  Church  at 
all,  but  by  the  Eastern  Mother  Catholic  Church, 
before  any  apostle  visited  Eome.  "  Eome's  chal- 
lenge "  that  she  changed  the  Sabbath  is  founded  on 
the  false  assumption  that  the  Eoman  Catholic 
Church  is  the  original  mother  Catholic  Church, 
which  is  utterly  false.  It  is  by  hiding  this  plain 
historical  fact  that  both  Eome  and  Adventists  can 
join  hands  in  their  "  Challenge  "  to  Protestant  Sun- 
day keepers. 

Notice  now  how  Adventists  place  the  origin  of 
the  Catholic  Church  at  Eome.  "  The  History  of 
the  Sabbath,"  1912,  says :  "  The  so-called  Catholic 


WHICH  CATHOLIC   CHURCH?  85 

Church,  true  to  its  Koman  origin"  (page  449). 
But  did  the  Catholic  Church  have  its  origin  at 
Eome  ?  No  indeed.  It  originated  in  Jerusalem  on 
Pentecost  long  before  there  was  any  Eoman  Church. 
Another  Seventh-Day  Adventist  work  says :  "  The 
Catholic  Church  was  a  growth — a  growth  of  error. 
— It  became  Catholic  only  by  lowering  the  standard 
of  faith  and  morality  so  as  to  admit  the  heathen."  ' 

This  statement  is  not  true.  The  Christian  Church 
was  everywhere  called  the  "  Catholic "  Church 
from  its  earliest  days  in  its  purest  period,  centuries 
before  the  Eoman  Papacy  existed.  Adventists  con- 
tradict all  history  by  such  statements. 

But  a  Seventh-Day  Baptist  has  the  candor  to  ad- 
mit the  facts  as  they  are.  Eev.  A.  H.  Lewis,  D.  D., 
in  "  Sabbath  and  Sunday,"  says  :  "  In  the  changes 
of  the  first  four  centuries  after  Christ,  the  Eastern 
Church,  which  was  really  the  mother  Church,  and 
the  home  of  primitive  Christianity,  was  left  unaf- 
fected by  the  influences  which  started  the  strong 
current  of  empire  westward  by  way  of  Eome" 
(Chap.  XIX,  p.  220). 

Thus  Harnack  says :  "  The  Eoman  Catholic 
Church  afterwards  claimed  as  her  own  those  writers 
of  the  first  century  (60-161)."  ^ 

But  not  one  of  these  Christian  writers  and  early 
Fathers  of  the  first  century  belonged  to  the  Eoman, 
Latin,  or  Western  Church.  All  were  Greeks,  be- 
longing to  the  Eastern  Catholic  Church. 

*  "  Fathers  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  Chap,  xviii,  p.  329. 

*  "History  of  Dogma,"  Vol.  Ill,  Chap,  iii,  p.  213. 


86      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

So,  then,  the  historical  facts  are  these :  The 
original  Catholic  Church  began  with  the  apostles, 
and  included  all  Orthodox  Christians  centuries  be- 
fore the  corrupt  Roman  Catholic  Church  came  up.  | 
This  later  Papal  Church  had  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  changing  the  Sabbath.  The  false  claim  , 
that  the  Roman  Church  changed  the  day  is  based 
on  the  further  false  claim  by  Romanists  that  she  is 
the  original  pure  apostolical  Catholic  Church.  In- 
telligent Adventist  ministers  know  this  very  well, 
and  are  not  guiltless  in  omitting  to  state  it.  Gen- 
erally, however,  their  members  are  entu'ely  ignorant 
of  these  facts.  They  ignorantly  suppose  that  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  is  the  only  Catholic 
Church. 


lY 

CATHOLICS  LOCATE  THE  CHANGE  OP  THE 
SABBATH  BACK  WITH  THE  APOSTLES 

THE  above  is  the  universally  accepted  doc- 
trine of  the  Koman  Catholic  Church.  It 
is  so  taught  in  all  her  doctrinal  works.  I 
have  examined  a  large  number  of  her  catechisms, 
her  religious  dictionary,  her  great  "  Encyclopedia," 
many  of  her  doctrinal  works,  and  I  have  inter- 
viewed one  of  her  bishops  and  several  of  her  priests, 
and  find  all  agreeing  in  teaching  this  :  The  Sabbath 
was  changed  by  the  apostles.  Notice  carefully  :  We 
are  not  now  inquiring  as  to  whether  the  apostles 
did  really  change  the  Sabbath,  but  as  to  what  the 
Catholic  Church  does  believe  and  teach  on  this 
question.  In  my  other  book,  noticed  in  first  page 
of  this  book,  it  is  clearly  proved  that  the  change  in 
the  day  was  made  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
hence  here  I  do  not  go  over  that  ground  again. 
Adventists  deny  that  the  apostles  had  anything  to 
do  in  changing  the  day,  and  confidently  quote 
Catholics  in  such  a  way  as  to  give  the  impression 
that  these  Catholic  authorities  say  that  their  Koman 
Church,  or  the  Pope,  or  the  Papacy,  hundreds  of 
years  after  Christ,  made  the  change.  This  is  un- 
fair. And  then  they  studiously  omit  an  important 
part  of  what  Catholics  plainly  teach,  and  then  con- 

87 


88      ORIGIN   OF  THE   LORD'S  DAY    OBSERVANCE 

strue  the  other  part  to  mean  what  Catholics  neither 
believe  nor  teach.  I  am  very  sorry  to  have  to  say 
this,  but  I  wish  Adventists  might  see  the  wrong  of 
it  and  tell  the  whole  truth. 

We  will  begin  with  the  very  highest  authority 
in  the  Catholic  Church — the  Council  of  Trent. 
"  The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  published 
by  order  of  Pius  TV,  contains  the  creed  of  the 
Church.  Every  member  has  to  swear  to  this  creed 
when  he  joins  the  Church,  hence  it  is  authoritative. 
It  devotes  eight  pages  to  the  Sabbath  question.  It 
says :  "  The  Sabbath  was  kept  holy  from  the  time 
of  the  liberation  of  the  people  of  Israel  from  the 
bondage  of  Pharaoh ;  the  obligation  was  to  cease 
with  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  worship,  of 
which  it  formed  a  part ;  and  it  therefore  was  no 
longer  obligatory  after  the  death  of  Christ.  .  .  . 
The  apostles  therefore  resolved  to  consecrate  the 
first  day  of  the  week  to  the  divine  worship,  and 
called  it  'the  Lord's  Day';  St.  John,  in  the 
Apocalypse,  makes  mention  of  '  the  Lord's  Day ' ; 
and  the  apostle  commands  collection  to  be  made 
*on  the  first  day  of  the  week,'  that  is,  according  to 
the  interpretation  of  St.  Chrysostom,  on  the  Lord's 
Day ;  and  thus  we  are  given  to  understand  that 
even  then  the  Lord's  Day  was  kept  holy  in  the 
Church  "  (pages  264,  265). 

Notice  that  this  creed  says  the  apostles  conse- 
crated the  day ;  it  was  holyp  and  was  called  the 
Lord's  Day.  The  Scriptures  are  quoted  to  prove 
all  this.    This  is  the  creed  of  the  Koman  Church. 


CATHOLICS  AGREE  WITH  PROTESTANTS       89 

Any  Catholic  priest  or  writer  teaching  differently 
contradicts  the  sacred  creed  of  his  own  Church  and 
violates  his  oath  to  believe  and  teach  it. 

The  following  is  a  decisive  witness  to  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Catholic  Church  as  to  when  the  Sab- 
bath was  changed  and  who  changed  it.  It  is  a 
comment  on  Acts  xx.  7,  in  the  Catholic  Bible  itself. 
Observe  how  they  place  the  change  just  where 
Protestants  do  and  quote  the  Bible  to  prove  it : 

" '  And  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.'  Here  St. 
Chrysostom,  with  many  other  interpreters  of  the 
Scripture,  explain  that  the  Christians,  even  at  this 
time,  must  have  changed  the  Sabbath  into  the  first 
day  of  the  week  (the  Lord's  Day),  as  all  Christians 
now  keep  it :  This  change  was  undoubtedly  made 
by  the  authority  of  the  Church :  hence  the  exercise 
of  the  power  which  Christ  had  given  to  her ;  for 
He  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath." 

In  1913  Monsignor  John  Bunyano  was  the  special 
representative  of  the  Pope  in  America.  JSText  to 
the  Pope,  he  was  then  the  highest  official  authority 
of  that  Church  in  the  United  States,  and  what  he 
says  is  authoritative.  "  Why  Sunday  is  the  First 
Day  "  was  the  title  of  an  article  he  furnished  the 
Washington  Times,  October  11,  1913.  He  says : 
"  In  the  JSTew  Law  the  time  for  the  fulfillment  of 
this  [Sabbath]  obligation  was  changed  by  the 
apostles  from  the  Sabbath,  or  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week,  to  Sunday,  or  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
primarily  to  commemorate  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ,  who,  early  in  the  morning  on  the  first  day 


90      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

of  the  week,  arose,  glorious  and  triumphant,  from 
the  dead.  Hence  it  is  that  in  Scripture,  the  first 
day  of  the  week  is  called  the  *  Lord's  Day' 
(Kev.  i.  10).  It  was  also  on  this  same  day  of  the 
week  that  the  Holy  Ghost  came  down  upon  the 
apostles,  and  that  the  faith  and  law  of  Christ  was 
for  the  first  time  solemnly  published  to  the  world 
by  them." 

On  this  the  Advent  Review  and  Herald,  October 
23,  1913,  says : 

"  As  we  read  this  article  we  should  not  forget 
that  we  are  reading  the  deliberate  declaration  of 
the  highest  ofiicial  in  America  of  that  Church  which 
claims  to  reach  back  to  Apostolic  days." 

Here,  then,  by  the  highest  authority  deliberately 
stated,  is  the  teaching  of  the  Koman  Catholic 
Church  as  to  who  changed  the  Sabbath  and  the 
time  when  it  was  done.  It  was  done  by  the 
apostles,  in  the  time  of  the  apostles.  All  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  certainly  know  this,  for  it  was 
published  by  the  editor  in  their  ofiicial  organ. 
The  Advent  Review.  Now  will  they  cease  teach- 
ing that  the  Catholic  Church  claims  to  have 
changed  the  Sabbath  several  hundred  years  after 
Christ  without  Apostolic  authority?  Kemember 
again  the  question  here  is  not  whether  the  apostles 
really  did  make  the  change,  but  what  does  the 
Catholic  Church  claim  about  it  ?  The  papal  dele- 
gate has  settled  that. 

Cardinal  Gibbons  comes  next  in  authority.  I 
wrote  him  with  regard  to  when  his  Church  began 


CATHOLICS  AGREE  WITH  PROTESTANTS       91 

and  when  the  day  was  changed.    Here  is  the  an- 
swer: 

Baltimore,  Md.,  July  23,  1896. 
Kev.  D.  M.  Canright, 

Dear  Sir: — In  reply  to  your  favor  of  the 
20th  inst.,  to  his  Eminence  the  Cardinal,  I  beg  to 
say : 

First.  The  Catholic  Church  dates  back  to  the 
day  when  our  Lord  made  St.  Peter  the  visible  head 
of  the  Church,  and  when  St.  Peter  established,  first 
at  Antioch,  then  at  Rome,  the  seat  of  his  residence 
and  jurisdiction. 

In  these  days,  and  those  immediately  following, 
we  find  traces  of  the  beginning  of  the  custom  of 
the  Sunday  observance.  You  may  refer  to  the 
Christian  writers  of  that  period.  (Confer  Ignatius 
ad  Magnes,  9  ;  Justin  Martyr,  1,  Apol.  59  ;  TertuL, 
Apol.  16.)  All  these  writers  speak  of  the  Sunday 
as  the  Lord's  Day  ;  no  other  more  distinct  trace  has 
been  preserved,  and  the  mention  which  occurs  in 
the  following  centuries  rests  on  the  fact  of  a 
previous  custom  more  or  less  general. 

C.  T.  Thomas,  Sect. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Cardinal  locates  the  in- 
troduction of  the  Lord's  Day  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Church  with  St.  Peter. 

After  the  Cardinal,  the  next  highest  dignitary  in 
America  is  Archbishop  Ireland.  In  answer  to  my 
question  as  to  lohen  the  Catholic  Church  changed 
the  Sabbath,  this  high  prelate  answered  as  follows : 

St.  Paul,  March  2,  1911^. 
My  dear  Sir : 

In  answer  to  your  question  I  would  state 
that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  simply  a  positive  pre- 


02      OIUGIN   OF  THE   LOKD'S   DAY   OBSERVANCE 

cept  in  the  Mosaic  law  and  lapsed  with  that  law. 
The  apostles  and  early  Christians  instituted  the 
Sunday  as  a  day  of  special  prayer  in  honor  of  the 
great  mysteries  of  the  Christian  religion,  the  resur- 
rection and  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  both 
occurring  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

Very  sincerely, 

John  Ireland. 


That  is  clear,  positive,  and  directly  to  the  point. 

Here  is  another  high  Catholic  authority,  "  The 
Catholic  Encyclopedia  on  Doctrine,"  Article,  "  Sun- 
day "  :  "  Sunday  was  the  first  day  of  the  week  ac- 
cording to  the  Jewish  method  of  reckoning  time, 
but  for  the  Christians  it  began  to  take  the  place  of 
the  Jewish  Sabbath  in  apostolic  times  as  the  day 
set  apart  for  the  public  solemn  worship  of  God " 
(Acts  XX.  7 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  2 ;  Rev.  i.  10).  The  same 
Encyclopedia,  Article,  "  Sabbath,"  says :  ''  St.  Paul 
enumerates  the  Sabbath  among  the  Jewish  observ- 
ances which  are  not  obligatory  on  Christians  (Col. 
ii.  16  ;  Gal.  iv.  9-10  ;  Eom.  xiv.  5).  The  Gentile 
converts  held  their  religioas  meetings  on  Sunday 
(Acts  XX.  7  ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  2),  and  with  the  disappear- 
ance of  the  Jewish  Church,  with  the  Christian 
Churches  the  day  was  exclusively  observed  as  the 
Lord's  Day." 

Notice  that  Catholics  quote  the  same  texts  as 
Protestants  do  to  indicate  the  change.  They  trace 
its  origin  to  the  New  Testament  the  same  as  we  do 
and  thus  claim  Scripture  authority  for  it.  It  will 
be  seen   that  all  these  high  Catholic  authorities 


CATHOLICS  AGREE  WITH  PROTESTANTS       93 

agree  in  locating  the  change  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles  and  by  the  apostles. 

The  following  is  from  "  The  Catholic  Dictionary, 
the  Universal  Christian  Educator,  Containing  Doc- 
trine of  the  Church,"  by  Eev.  Wm.  A.  Addis  and 
Thomas  Arnold,  A.  M.,  both  of  the  Eoyal  Univer- 
sity of  Ireland.  Endorsed  by  Cardinal  Manning  and 
Cardinal  McClosky.  There  could  be  no  better  Cath- 
olic authority.  Now  read,  Article  •'  Sunday  "  :  "  The 
precept  of  observing  the  Sabbath  was  completely 
abrogated  in  the  Christian  Church.  In  commemo- 
ration of  Christ's  resurrection,  the  Church  observes 
Sunday.  The  observance  does  not  rest  on  any  pos- 
itive law,  of  which  there  is  no  trace.  Sunday  is  of 
merely  ecclesiastical  institution,  dating  however 
from  the  time  of  the  apostles.  Such  is  the  opinion 
of  St.  Thomas.  The  Scripture  given  above  (Acts 
XX.  7 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  2  ;  Eev.  i.  10)  shows  that  the  ob- 
servance of  Sunday  had  begun  in  the  apostolic  age ; 
but  even  were  Scripture  silent,  tradition  would  put 
the  point  beyond  doubt." 

I  quote  all  these  to  show  only  one  point ;  viz.,  the 
time  when  Catholics  claim  the  change  was  made  by 
the  Church.  They  all  say  it  was  made  by  the 
apostles.    No  other  date  is  given  or  suggested. 

Now  read  the  written  testimony  of  two  Catholic 
priests : 

TESTIMONY   OF   A   CATHOLIC   PRIEST 

"  Having  lived  for  years  among  the  Seventh-Day 
Adventists,  I  am  familiar  with  their  claims  that  the 


94      OEIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

Pope  of  Kome  changed  the  Sabbath  from  the 
seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Such  asser- 
tions are  wholly  unfounded.  Catholics  claim  no 
such  thing;  but  maintain  that  the  apostles  them- 
selves established  the  observance  of  Sunday  and 
that  we  received  it  by  tradition  from  them.  The 
councils  and  Popes  afterwards  simply  confirmed  the 
keeping  of  the  day  as  received  from  the  apostles. 

"John  Meiler, 
"  Kector  of  St.  John's  Church,  Healdsburg,  Cal." 

The  following  statement  I  drew  up,  and  read  to 
a  leading  Catholic  priest  of  Grand  Kapids,  Mich., 
who  readily  signed  it,  as  will  be  seen  below  : 

"  The  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  change  of  the  Sab- 
bath is  this :  The  apostles,  by  instruction  from 
Jesus  Christ,  changed  the  Sabbath  from  Saturday 
to  Sunday  to  commemorate  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  both  of 
which  occurred  on  Sunday.  The  change  was  made 
by  the  apostles  themselves,  and  hence  by  divine  au- 
thority, at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Church.  There 
are  references  to  this  change  in  Acts  xx.  7  ;  1  Cor. 
xvi.  1,  2 ;  Eev.  i.  10,  etc.  Yet  these  texts  do  not 
state  positively  such  a  change  ;  hence  Catholics  go 
to  the  statements  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers, 
where  this  change  by  the  apostles  is  confirmed  and 
put  beyond  doubt.  Catholics  also  rely  upon  the 
tradition  of  the  Church  which  says  that  the  change 
was  made  by  the  apostles.  Catholics  never  teach 
that  the  change  of  the  day  was  made  by  the  Church 


CATHOLICS  AGREE  WITH  PROTESTANTS       95 

two  or  three  hundred  years  after  Christ.  Such  a 
statement  would  be  contrary  to  all  the  facts  of  his- 
tory and  the  traditions  of  the  Church. 

"The  Holy  Catholic  Church  began  with  the 
apostles.  St.  Peter  was  the  first  Pope.  Hence, 
when  they  say  that  the  Church  changed  the  Sab- 
bath, they  mean  that  it  was  done  by  the  Church  in 
the  days  of  the  apostles.  Neither  the  Church  nor 
the  Pope,  two  or  three  hundred  years  after  the 
apostles,  had  anything  whatever  to  do  with  chang- 
ing the  Sabbath,  for  the  change  had  been  made 
ages  before.  Catholics  do  not  call  the  first  day  of 
the  week  the  Sabbath,  for  that  was  Saturday ;  but 
they  call  it  Sunday,  or  the  Lord's  Day." 

This  above  statement  by  Kev.  D.  M.  Canright  is 
true  and  pure  Catholic  doctrine.— Eev.  James  C. 
Pulcher,  Pastor  of  Sto  James'  Church,  Grand 
Rapids,  Mich. 

See  how  all  these  Catholic  authorities  agree. 

Now  come  to  the  catechisms  which  Adventists 
are  so  fond  of  quoting.  This  is  from  a  "  System- 
atic Study  of  the  Catholic  Religion."  It  is  the  one 
used  by  all  students  in  the  Catholic  High  School  in 
Grand  Rapids,  Mich.  On  page  294  I  read,  "  The 
Church  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  has  changed 
the  Sabbath  into  the  Lord's  Day."  In  the  Advent 
book,  "  Who  Changed  the  Sabbath  ?  "  page  9,  the 
following  is  quoted  from  the  "  Catholic  Christian 
Instructed." 

"  Quest.  What  are  the  days  which  the  Church 
commands  to  be  kept  holy  ? 


96     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LOKD's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

"  Ans.  1.  The  Sunday,  or  our  Lord's  Day,  which 
we  observe  by  apostolic  tradition^  instead  of  the 
Sabbath." 

You  see  this  catechism  refers  the  change  of  the 
Sabbath  back  to  the  apostles  the  same  as  all  other 
Catholic  writers  do.  The  Church  did  this  in  the 
time  of  the  apostles,  just  as  all  Protestants  teach. 
Here  follows  another  from  the  same  catechism : 

"  Quest.  What  warrant  have  you  for  keeping 
the  Sunday,  preferable  to  the  ancient  Sabbath, 
which  was  the  Saturday  ? 

"Ans.  We  have  for  it  the  authority  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  ajpostolic  tradition.^'* 

Here  we  are  again  referred  right  back  to  the 
apostles  as  before. 

I  will  close  this  testimony  of  the  Catholics  with 
the  following  from  a  "  Mission  Priest."  These  are 
priests  of  the  very  highest  education  and  influence. 
Their  "  mission  "  is  to  go  from  city  to  city  in  all 
the  states  to  their  great  church  centers  and  give  a 
course  of  lectures  on  Catholic  doctrines  to  both 
Catholics  and  non-Catholics.  They  are  the  best 
educated  and  best  posted  priests  in  that  Church. 
So  what  they  teach  is  of  the  highest  character  and 
reliable  as  expressing  Catholic  doctrines.  I  have 
obtained  from  my  next  door  neighbor  (a  Catholic 
family  whose  daughter  attends  the  Catholic  High 
School  here)  the  following  book  :  "  A  Full  Course 
of  Instruction  in  Explanation  of  the  Catechism," 
by  Kev.  J.  Perry,  edited  and  adapted  to  the  present 
wants  of  Colleges,  Academies,  and  Private  Families, 


CATHOLICS  AGREE  WITH  PROTESTANTS       97 

by  a  priest  of  the  Mission.  It  is  endorsed  by  the 
Archbishop  of  St.  Louis,  Mo.  Notice  that  this  is 
the  authority  studied  in  families,  high  schools, 
colleges,  and  academies.  Is  there  any  better  wit- 
ness? Now  read:  "Third  [Sabbath]  command- 
ment. Its  obligation  transferred  from  Saturday  to 
Sunday."  "  What  day  of  the  week  is  the  seventh 
day  or  Sabbath  Day?"  "  It  is  Saturday."  "Then 
why  do  we  not  keep  Saturday  holy  ?  "  "  Because 
the  Church  in  the  apostles'  time  transferred  the 
obligation  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the 
week."  "  Why  was  this  done  ?  "  "  In  honor  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore  the  first  day  of  the 
week  is  called  the  Lord's  Day  (Eev.  i.  10).  It  was 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week  (or  Sunday)  that  Christ 
rose  from  the  dead;  that  He  commissioned  His 
apostles  to  teach  all  nations ;  that  He  empowered 
them  to  forgive  sins ;  that  He  sent  down  upon 
them  the  Holy  Ghost ;  it  was  on  this  day  that  the 
apostles  began  to  preach  the  doctrines  of  Christ  and 
to  establish  the  Christian  religion  "  (pages  168-169). 

Here  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Catholics  use  ex- 
actly the  same  arguments  for  the  change  of  the 
day  that  all  Protestants  do,  and  locate  the  change 
at  the  same  date,  in  the  time  of  the  apostles  and 
by  the  apostles. 

But  do  not  the  catechism  and  Catholic  writers, 
when  controverting  Protestants,  assert  that  the 
"  Holy  Catholic  Church  "  changed  the  day  ?  Cer- 
tainly, but  they  also  claim  that  the  Catholic  Church 
began  with  the  apostles  who  changed  the  day.    Do 


98      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

not  Adventists  know  this  ?  Yes.  "Why,  then,  do 
they  not  tell  the  whole  facts  in  the  case?  Let 
them  answer. 

Consider  the  high  Catholic  authorities  quoted  on 
this  subject — the  Council  of  Trent ;  the  papal  dele- 
gate. Cardinal  Gibbons ;  Archbishop  Ireland ;  the 
Catholic  Encyclopedia ;  the  Catholic  Dictionary ; 
written  statements  of  priests  ;  and  the  teachings  of 
the  catechism.  All  agree  that  the  change  in  the 
day  was  made  by  the  apostles.  Beyond  dispute, 
this  establishes  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church 
on  the  origin  of  the  Lord's  Day.  Not  a  single 
Catholic  authority  can  be  quoted  teaching  that  the 
change  of  the  Sabbath  was  made  by  the  Popes  or 
by  the  Papacy  centuries  later.  That  is  purely  an 
invention  of  Seventh-Day  Adventists. 

Here,  then,  is  the  testimony  of  two  hundred  and 
fifty  million  Roman  Catholics,  all  agreeing  that  the 
observance  of  Sunday  as  the  Lord's  Day  originated 
with  the  apostles.  Now  if  Adventists  quote  the 
Catholics,  then  let  them  abide  by  their  testimony. 

Now  read  "  Rome's  Challenge,"  "  Father  En- 
right's  Challenge,"  and  a  lot  of  other  Catholic 
"challenges,"  which  Adventists  gleefully  gather 
up  and  endorse  and  peddle  the  world  over  as  un- 
answerable. Read  them  very  carefully  and  notice 
particularly  that  not  one  of  these  Catholic  "  chal- 
lenges "  ever  locates  the  time  when  the  "  Catholic 
Church"  made  the  change.  In  all  these  "Chal- 
lenges" they  adroitly  leave  this  point  out,  and 
presume  on  the  ignorance  of  the  general  public, 


CATHOLICS  AGREE  WITH  PROTESTANTS       99 

which  supposes  that  the  Catholic  Church  began 
centuries  after  Christ.  Then  Adventists  take  ad- 
vantage of  this  popular  idea  of  the  Catholic  Church 
and  locate  the  change  about  300  years  after  Christ. 
Such  deception  is  unworthy  of  Christian  teachers. 

The  position  of  Protestants  on  the  change  of  the 
Sabbath  is  so  well  known  that  no  proof  need  be 
given.     All  hold  that  the  change  of  the  day  was 
made  in  the  days  of    the  apostles  and   by  the 
apostles.    Here  I  do  not  argue  as  to  whether  they 
are  right  or  not.     I  simply  state  what  they  believe 
and  teach.     I  could  readily  name  scores  of  distinct 
Churches    all  differing  more  or    less  in  various 
doctrines,  such  as  Lutherans,  Episcopalians,  Bap- 
tists, Methodists,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists, 
Disciples,  United  Brethren,  Dutch  Eeformed,  etc., 
etc.,  etc.     Go  ask  any  of  these,  "  Why  do  you  keep 
Sunday  ?  "    The  answer  is  simple  and  always  the 
same  by  all,  "  Because  Christ  rose  from  the  dead 
that    day."      "When  was    this  change  made?" 
"After    the    resurrection."      "Who    made    this 
change  ?  "    "  The  apostles."    All  answer  the  same. 
I  could  give  many  quotations  by  standard  writers 
from  all  these  Churches  saying  this.    But  what  is 
the    use?      Every  intelligent  person  knows  this 
already.      The    great    Eastern    Greek    Orthodox 
Church,  numbering  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions, 
teaches  the  same  thing.     Catholics  claim  just  the 
same  as  Protestants  do  that  the  change  of  the  day 
was  made  in  the  time  of  the  apostles  and  by  the 
apostles  and  quote  Acts  xx.  7 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  2 ;  Kev. 


100     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

i.  10  to  prove  it  just  as  Protestants  do.  The  only 
difference  is  that  Roman  Catholics  claim  that  their 
Church  goes  back  to  the  apostles,  begins  with  them 
and  includes  them.  Hence,  when  the  apostles 
changed  the  day  it  was  done  by  the  "  Holy  Catholic 
Church."  That  is  the  whole  of  it.  This  is  exactly 
what  all  Protestants  teach,  except  that  they  deny 
that  the  apostles  were  Roman  Catholics.  Advent- 
ists  deny  it  too.  So  as  to  when,  why,  where,  and 
by  whom  the  day  was  changed  Catholics  agree 
exactly  with  Protestants,  and  contradict  what 
Adventists  quote  them  to  prove.  Reader,  remem- 
ber this,  and  that  Adventist  bugbear  will  frighten 
you  no  more. 

Hastings'  "Dictionary  of  the  Bible,"  Article 
"  Lord's  Day,"  says,  "  When  Jesus  uttered  the  cry, 
^  It  is  finished,'  the  Mosaic  dispensation  virtually 
passed  away.  His  Resurrection,  Ascension,  and 
Outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  successive 
affirmations  of  the  great  fact,  and  the  destruction 
of  the  temple  made  it  plain  to  all  but  the  blindest. 
But  in  the  meantime  nothing  is  more  striking  than 
the  tender  way  in  which  the  apostles  and  Chris- 
tians of  Jewish  birth  were  weaned  from  the  old 
religion.  The  dead  leaves  of  Judaism  fell  off 
gradually.  They  were  not  rudely  torn  off  by  man. 
The  new  facts,  the  new  dogmas,  the  new  ordinances 
first  established  themselves,  and  then,  little  by 
little,  the  incompatibility  of  the  old  and  the  new 
was  realized  which  necessarily  issued  in  the  casting 
off  of  the  old. 


CATHOLICS  AGEEE  WITH  PROTESTANTS     101 

"The  old  things  of  Judaism  were  made  new  in 
Christianity.  This,  however,  was  not  accomplished 
by  a  deliberate  substitution  of  one  ordinance  for 
another;  but  first  the  old  ordinances  were  simply 
antiquated,  and  their  experience  matured  under  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  proved  that  the  positive 
institutions  of  the  new  religion  more  than  fulfllled 
those  of  the  old."  "Jesus  enunciated  the  great 
truths  of  the  Gospel,  and  left  them  to  germinate 
and  bear  fruit  through  their  own  inherent  power  " 
(Lewis).  ^ 


THE  PAGAN  ROMANS  AND  GEEEKS 

HAD  NO  WEEKLY  DAY  OF  EEST, 

OE  FESTIVAL,  OE  WOESHIP 

ONE  of  the  chief  arguments  which  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  make  against  Sunday 
observance  is  this :  They  say  that  the 
pagan  nations,  especially  the  Romans,  regarded 
Sunday  as  a  holiday,  or  festival  day :  a  day  of  wor- 
ship of  their  heathen  gods,  particularly  the  sun,  on 
every  Sunday, — hence  Sun-day.  When  these  pagans 
professed  Christianity  they  gradually  brought  into 
the  Church  this  pagan  custom  of  a  Sunday  festival 
day.  Then  the  apostate  Eoman  Church  adopted  it 
from  these  heathens.  So  now  we  are  keeping  a 
pagan,  papal  day,  hateful  to  God.  Their  literature 
against  Sunday -keeping  is  largely  based  on  this 
theory  as  fundamental.  Their  "  History  of  the  Sab- 
bath "  is  saturated  with  this  argument.  It  bristles 
in  their  tracts,  pamphlets,  books,  and  sermons  every- 
where and  all  the  time.  Their  children  and  mem- 
bers believe  it  as  firmly  as  they  believe  the  Bible. 
Hence,  they  abominate  Sunday  observance  and  de- 
light in  showing  contempt  for  it  in  every  possible 
way.    If  they  are  wrong  here  the  very  bottom 

102 


PAGANS  HAD  NO  SUNDAY  WORSHIP        103 

drops  out  of  their  anti-Sunday  arguments.  Eead  a 
few  of  their  assertions.  Elder  J.  H.  "Waggoner 
says :  "  I  only  take  it  upon  me  to  fully  and  clearly 
show  that  the  Sunday  has  its  origin  as  a  day  of 
regard  and  observance  in  paganism  and  the  Papacy." 
"  I  shall  show  that  the  authority,  the  name  and  the 
sacredness  of  Sunday  are  entirely  of  pagan  origin." 
"  Sunday  is  in  every  feature  a  heathen  institution."  * 
Also  "History  of  the  Sabbath,"  1912,  page  315: 
"  Sunday  was  indeed  the  wild  solar  holiday  of  all 
pagan  times." 

Scores  of  such  statements  are  found  in  their 
works.  By  these  assertions  they  frighten  the 
common  people  into  giving  up  Sunday,  because 
they  are  not  able  to  answer  them.  All  such  state- 
ments are  absolutely  untrue  as  the  following  evi- 
dence will  abundantly  prove. 

I  do  not  accuse  the  brethren  of  any  intent  to  de- 
ceive in  this  matter.  Till  nearly  the  last  years  I 
was  with  them  I  myself  taught  the  same  thing. 
This  they  now  quote  against  me.  I  did  not  mean 
to  be  untruthful,  but,  without  personal  investiga- 
tion for  myself,  simply  followed  our  older  authors. 
I  know  that  the  other  ministers  did  the  same,  and 
their  ministers  and  writers  do  the  same  now. 
Their  quotations  on  this  subject  in  their  recent 
publications  easily  prove  that.  It  is  not  intentional 
dishonesty,  but  a  lack  of  a  candid  investigation  of 
historical  facts  as  they  really  are. 

In  my  city  there  is  a  great  Public  Library,  of 

» ''Replies  to  Canright,"  pp.  125,  126,  133. 


104:     ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

146,000  volumes,  containing  all  up-to-date  publica- 
tions available.  Each  department  has  a  clerk  who 
will  quickly  bring  any  book  or  article  on  any  sub- 
ject wanted.  Here  I  have  found  much  contained 
in  these  pages.  An  editorial  in  a  leading  daily 
says: 

**  One  of  the  outstanding  features  of  modern  life 
is  the  fact  that  specialized  knowledge  is  always  on 
tap  for  inquiring  minds.  The  first  fruits  of  research 
may  be  procured  at  any  up-to-date  and  extensive 
library,  such  as  the  one  which  Grand  Rapids  is  for- 
tunate enough  to  possess." 

Knowing  that  our  great  state  and  national  insti- 
tutions of  learning  maintain  specialists  in  every  line 
of  knowledge,  I  decided  to  apply  to  them  for  in- 
formation on  this  subject.  These  learned  scholars 
would  have  no  inducement  to  be  one-sided  or  unfair. 
These  specialists  have  every  possible  means  of  in- 
formation at  hand  and  devote  a  lifetime  of  study  to 
their  particular  branch  of  knowledge.  It  is  their 
business  to  furnish  to  inquirers  the  results  of  their 
research.  Hence  I  drew  up  a  list  of  questions  fully 
covering  every  possible  phase  of  this  subject,  as  will 
be  seen.  I  carefully  avoided  giving  any  intimation 
of  my  views,  or  of  the  use  I  wished  to  make  of  their 
replies,  so  as  not  in  any  way  to  influence  their 
answers. 

The  world  renowned  British  Museum  is  the  high- 
est authority  to  which  I  could  refer,  so  I  will  give 
this  first.  I  quote  my  letter  to  them  with  their 
answer  to  each  question  one  after  the  other. 


PAGANS  HAD  K-0  SUNDAY  WORSHIP       105 

Grand  Bapids,  3fieh.^  Deo.  8,  19 H, 
Britisli  Museum^  De^aHment  of  History^ 
London^  England. 

Dea7'  /Sirs : — For  the  information  of  many 
who  are  deeply  interested  in  this  subject,  would 
you  kindly  answer  briefly  the  enclosed  questions  ? 

D.  M.  Canright. 

Here  is  the  answer : 

Department  of  Greeh  and  Boman  Antiquities^ 
British  Museum^ 

London,  W.  (7.,  Dec.  ^^  1911i.. 
Sir: 

I  am  commanded  by  the  Assistant  Keeper  of 
Greek  and  Eoman  Antiquities  to  reply  as  follows 
to  your  questions  on  the  ancient  week  : 

Q.  1.  Did  the  pagan  Komans  and  Greeks  ever 
have  any  regular  weekly  day  of  rest  from  secular 
work  ? 

Ans.    No. 

Q.  2.  Did  they  have  any  regular  weekly  festival 
day? 

Ans.     No. 

Q.  3.  Did  they  have  any  regular  weekly  day 
when  they  assembled  for  pagan  worship  ? 

Ans.    No. 

Q.  4.  Did  they  have  any  special  day  of  the  week 
when  individuals  went  to  the  temples  to  pray  or 
make  offerings  ? 

Ans.  No ;  both  for  Greeks  and  Komans  the 
month  was  the  unit  and  not  the  week.  The  Greek 
calendar  varied  in  different  states  but  the  month  was 
generally  divided  into  three  periods  of  ten  days. 
The  Eomans  reckoned  from  three  fixed  points  in 
the  month,  the  Kalend  or  first,  the  Nones  fifth  or 
seventh,  the  Ides  thirteenth  or  fifteenth.    These 


106      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

subdivisions  in  themselves  had  no  religious  signifi' 
cance.  Also  in  the  Eoman  calendars  were  nundinal, 
or  market  days,  at  periods  of  eight  days,  or,  as  the 
Komans  reckoned,  nine.  On  these  days  farm  work, 
etc.,  stopped  and  citizens  flocked  into  the  town 
markets.  To  some  extent  this  may  be  a  regular 
stoppage  of  secular  work  ;  but  it  had  no  religious 
significance,  except  that  it  was  considered  an  evil 
omen  when  the  nundinal  coincided  with  other 
festival  days,  e.  g.,  the  Nones. 

The  nundinal  period  seems  derived  from  a 
blundering  reminiscence  of  a  quarter  of  a  lunar 
period,  and  there  seems  no  connection  with  the 
later  Seven  days'  week  (see  below). 

Q.  5.  As  Sunday  was  sacred  to  the  Sun,  Monday 
to  the  Moon,  Saturday  to  Saturn,  etc.,  were  those 
supposed  deities  worshipped  on  their  own  particular 
days  more  than  on  any  other  days  ? 

Ans.  No ;  the  old  worship  of  the  gods  was  dis- 
appearing when  the  seven-day  week  came  about. 
The  significance  of  the  deities'  names  was  astrolog- 
ical, not  religious,  e.  g.yif  a  person  were  born  on 
Monday,  the  moon  would  influence  his  horoscope, 
but  the  moon  was  never  an  object  of  common  wor- 
ship. 

Q.  6.  "When  was  our  week  of  seven  days  first 
introduced  into  the  Eoman  calendar  ? 

Ans.  There  are  traces  in  the  literature  of  the 
late  republic  (first  cent.  B.  c.)  that  the  Komans  used 
the  week  of  seven  days  for  astrological  purposes,  in 
connection  with  the  many  Eastern  superstitions  of 
the  period.  It  was  probably  the  third  century, 
A.  D.  before  the  seven  day  week  came  into  com- 
mon use. 

Q.  7.  From  whom  did  the  Romans  learn  the 
week  of  seven  days  ? 

Ans.    From  the  Jews,  alternately  the  Assyrians 


PAGANS  HAD  NO  SUNDAY  WORSHIP       107 

and  Babylonians  ;  the  names  were  probably  fixed  by 
the  Hellenistic  Greeks. 

Q.  8.  Did  the  pagan  Greeks  ever  adopt  in  com- 
mon life,  or  in  their  calendar,  the  week  of  seven 
days? 

Ans.    1^0. 

Q.  9.  Did  Apollo,  the  Sungod,  either  among  the 
Komans  or  Greeks,  have  any  special  day  on  which 
he  was  worshipped  with  prayers  or  offerings  more 
than  on  any  other  day  ? 

Ans.  There  were  certain  set  festivals  at  various 
temples  ;  these  ivere  amiual,  not  %oeekly. 

Q.  10.  Did  the  pagan  reverence  for  Sunday 
have  anything  to  do  in  influencing  Christians  to 
select  that  day  as  their  rest  day  ? 

Ans.  JSTo  ;  it  can  hardly  be  said  that  there  was 
any  special  reverence  for  Sunday  in  pagan  times 
(see  answer  to  No.  5). 

I  am,  sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

F.  N.  Pkyce. 

You  see  this  historian  gives  an  unqualified  NO 
to  all  the  questions.  Notice  particularly  that  the 
names  of  the  days  of  the  week  were  all  only  asty^o- 
logical^  not  religious.  There  was  no  religious  sa- 
credness  attached  to  a  day  because  it  was  named 
after  some  planet  as  Sun-day — Sun's  day — or  Mon- 
day, Moon's  day,  etc.  The  sun  was  not  worshipped 
on  Sunday,  nor  the  moon  on  Monday,  nor  Saturn 
on  Saturday,  etc.  Also  notice  carefully  that  Apollo 
was  not  worshipped  on  Sunday  or  on  any  week  day. 
His  festival  days  were  annual,  not  weekly,  as  Ad- 
ventists  have  taught.  Then  note  that  there  was  no 
special  reverence  for  Sunday  in  pagan  times.    Here 


108      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

again  Adventists  are  proved  to  be  entirely  wrong. 
This  again  destroys  all  their  contention  that  Sun- 
day sacredness  originated  with  pagans.  The  proof 
is  abundant  that  no  such  thing  was  ever  known 
among  the  pagan  Eomans  or  Greeks.  Hence,  Sun- 
day-keeping, or  Sunday  sacredness,  could  not  have 
originated  with  them. 

Our  next  witness  is  from  the  Smithsonian  Insti- 
tute, "Washington,  D.  C.  This  great  institution  of 
learning  is  supported  by  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment. Here  the  highest  qualified  specialists  in 
every  line  of  knowledge  are  employed.  Here  they 
have  access  to  every  possible  means  of  up-to-date 
information  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  etc.  It 
will  be  seen  that  I  addressed  nearly  the  same  ques- 
tions to  this  learned  body  and  that  the  answers  are 
the  same  as  from  the  British  Museum : 

Smithsonian  Institute,  Wash.,  D.  (7., 
September  23,  19H, 
Key.  D.  M.  Caneight, 
Grand  Eapids,  Mich. 

Dear  Sir : — I  have  referred  your  letter  of 
September  14th  to  Dr.  I.  M.  Casonawicz,  Assistant 
Curator  of  Old  World  Archeology,  who  furnishes 
the  following  replies  to  your  several  inquiries  : 

Q.  1.     Did  the  pagan  Romans  and  Greeks  ever 
have  any  regular  weekly  day  of  rest  from  secular 
work? 
Ans.     ISTo. 

2.  Did  they  ever  have  any  weekly  festival  day  ? 
Ans.     No. 

3.  Did  they  have  any  regular  weekly  day  when 
they  assembled  for  pagan  worship  ? 


PAGANS  HAD  NO  SUNDAY  WORSHIP       109 

Ans.    ISFo. 

4.  When  was  our  calendar  of  the  week  first  in- 
troduced among  the  Komans  and  Greeks  ? 

Ans.  The  division  of  the  month  into  weeks  was 
introduced  into  Kome  from  Egypt.  The  date  is 
uncertain,  but  it  was  not  earlier  than  the  second 
century,  a.  d. 

5.  When  was  our  calendar  of  the  week  first 
recognized  in  Roman  law  ? 

Ans.  The  earliest  Sunday  legislation  was  en- 
acted under  Constantine  I,  321  a.  d.  No  legisla- 
tion of  earlier  date  on  the  division  of  the  month  is 
known. 

6.  As  each  day  of  the  week  was  dedicated  to 
some  god,  as  Sunday  to  the  Sun,  Monday  to  the 
Moon,  Saturday  to  Saturn,  etc.,  was  each  of  these 
supposed  deities  worshipped  on  one  particular  day 
more  than  any  other  day  ? 

Ans.     No. 

1.     Did  the  pagan  Romans  have  any  one  special 
day  in  the  week  when  individuals,  if  they  chose, 
went  to  make  prayers  or  offerings  to  their  gods  ? 
Ans.     No. 

8.     Did  Apollo  have  any  special  day  in  the  week 
or  month  more  than  any  other  day  when  he  was 
worshipped  with  prayers  or  offerings  ? 
Ans.    No. 

Very  truly  yours, 

R.  Rathborn, 
Assistant  Sec.  in  charge  of  National  Museum. 

Here  we  have  two  of  the  most  reliable  witnesses 
in  the  world  perfectly  agreeing.  If  their  testimony 
is  worth  anything,  then  Adventists  must  revise  their 
theory  that  Sunday  sacredness,  or  Sunday  festivals, 
or  Sunday  rest  days  originated  with  pagans. 


110      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

But  here  is  another  witness  confirming  the  other 
two  but  giving  the  answer  more  in  detail.  Harvard 
University,  Cambridge,  Mass..  is  the  oldest  and  best 
known  university  in  America.  I  addressed  the 
same  questions  there.  George  F.  Moore,  professor 
of  Ancient  Koman  and  Greek  History,  furnished 
me  the  following  complete  account  of  all  the 
Eoman  and  Greek  festivals.  It  completely  des- 
troys all  claim  for  any  pagan  sacredness  of  Sun- 
day. 

Professor  Moore  wrote  me  as  follows : 

3  Divinity  Ave.^  Camhridge^  Mass., 

May  U,  1913. 
Dear  Sir  : 

There  are  two  seven-day  weeks :  the  Jewish 
week,  with  a  Sabbath  on  the  seventh  day ;  and  the 
Astrological  week,  with  days  named  after  the  sun, 
moon,  and  five  planets,  in  our  order  determined  by 
the  theories  of  astrology,  but  without  any  day  of 
rest.  The  combination  of  the  two  is  Christian. 
The  Astrological  week  first  appears  in  Greek  and 
Latin  writings  about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era.  Its  antecedents  are  unknown.  It  had  no  use 
in  ordinary  life.  Abstinence  from  labor  on  the 
seventh  day,  or  on  one  day  in  seven,  is  a  distinc- 
tively Jewish  institution.  The  edict  of  Constantine 
(321  A.  D.)  closing  the  courts  on  Sunday  and  pro- 
hibiting some  kinds  of  labor  on  that  day,  is  the 
first  recognition  of  a  seven-day  week  in  Eoman 
law.  The  ancient  Komans  had  a  market  day  every 
eight  days,  when  the  peasants  came  to  town  to 
market,  but  it  was  in  no  sense  a  day  of  rest.  In 
the  old  Koman  calendar  there  were  many  days 
when  the  courts  were  closed  and  other  public  and 


PAGANS  HAD  NO  SUNDAY  WORSHIP       111 

private  business  was  not  done.     They  had  also 
many  festivals  on  which  the  people  left  their  ordi- 
nary occupation  to  take  part  in  the  celebrations, 
but  these  have  no  periodicity  like  that  of  the  loeeJc. 
Very  truly  yours, 

George  F.  Moore. 

In  a  second  letter  he  says  : 

Kev.  D.  M.  Canright, 

Dear  Sir : — In  reply  to  your  inquiries  in 
your  letter  of  November  23d,  I  would  say  : 

1.  The  planetary  week  in  which  the  days  were 
named  from  their  regents,  Saturday,  Sunday,  etc., 
was  an  invention  of  the  astrologers^  probably  in  the 
second  century,  b.  c,  and  has  no  relation  to  relig- 
ion or  influence  upon  it.  Saturn,  for  example, 
was  not  worshipped  on  Saturday,  nor  Jupiter  on 
Thursday.  The  festivals  of  the  several  gods  were 
never  weekly  festivals,  nor  did  they  occur  on  days 
fixed  by  other  divisions  of  the  month,  say  the 
tenth  day. 

2.  The  religious  calendars  of  the  Greek  cities 
were  independent  of  one  another  and  underwent 
many  changes  in  the  course  of  time.  Our  knowl- 
edge of  these  calendars  is  incomplete ;  only  that  of 
Athens  is  pretty  fully  known.  The  festivals  fell  in 
certain  months,  and  on  certain  days  of  the  month. 
Thus,  at  Athens,  where  the  first  month  of  the  year, 
Hekabombaion,  began  at  the  new  moon  following  the 
summer  solstice  (roughly  corresponding,  therefore, 
to  our  July),  there  was  a  festival  of  Apollo  on  the 
first  (or  on  the  seventh  of  the  month).  The  great 
festival  of  Athena  Polias,  the  prophetess  of  the  city, 
was  on  the  28th.  There  were  often  festivals  on  the 
12th  (Kronia)  and  on  the  16th  (Synorkia).  The 
second  month  had  only  one,  rather  insignificant, 


112      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY    OBSERVANCE 

festival.  In  the  third  month,  the  5th  day  was  an 
All  Souls'  Day,  a  feast  of  the  dead  ;  a  thanksgiving 
was  observed  on  the  12th-15th;  from  the  16th  to  the 
26th  were  the  great  Athena  Elensinia,  and  so  on. 
No  particular  days  of  the  month  were  to  be  espe- 
cially favored,  either  in  general  or  for  any  indi- 
vidual god. 

3.  The  Eoman  calendar  is  preserved  only  from 
a  comparatively  late  time,  when  the  worship  of 
Greek  and  foreign  deities  was  fully  established.  So 
far  as  the  old  Roman  calendar  can  be  reconstructed 
it  appears  that  the  Ides  of  every  month  were  dedi- 
cated to  Jupiter,  who  had,  besides,  festivals  on  the 
23d  of  April,  5th  of  July,  19th  of  August,  11th  of 
October,  25th  of  December.  The  festivals  of  Mars 
occur  chiefly  in  the  month  named  after  him,  1st, 
14th,  17th,  19th,  23d,  also  February  27th,  October 
15th  and  19th.  These  examples  may  suflice  to  show 
that  no  principle  determines  the  fixing  of  these 
days.  It  may  be  observed,  however,  that,  as  among 
many  people,  the  solstices  and  equinoxes,  which 
mark  the  seasons  of  the  year,  are  recognized  in  the 
calendar.  Also  that  all  who  have  a  calendar  based 
on  lunar  months  give  some  importance  to  the  first 
appearance  of  the  new  moon,  and  often  to  the  full 
moon  also. 

The  festivals  were  public  holidays,  each  with  its 
own  rites,  and  customs,  sacrifices,  processions,  etc. 
The  priests  in  Greece  and  Eome,  speaking  gener- 
ally, officiated  on  these  occasions  only.  The  priest 
was  a  citizen,  elected  or  chosen  by  lot,  for  a  longer 
or  shorter  time  (sometimes  for  life) :  in  most  cases 
he  was  not  expected  to  demit  his  ordinary  occupa- 
tion. 

A  priesthood  who  were  priests  and  nothing  else, 
who  spent  their  lives  in  the  service  of  the  temples, 
with  daily  offerings  and  liturgies  came  in  only  with 


PAGANS  BAD  NO  SUNDAY  WORSHIP        113 

foreign,   chiefly  Oriental,   gods,   like  the  Magna 
Mater. 

Private  persons  went  to  the  temples  when  they 
had  occasion  to  offer  prayers  or  sacrifices  or  to  make 
vows,  etc.  There  were  no  stated  days  for  such 
visits— though  some  days  were  in  some  temples 
luckier  than  others,  and  there  was  nothing  like  a 
stated  day  for  the  assembling  of  a  worshipping  con- 
gregation except  the  festivals  of  the  local  calendar. 
Yours  very  truly, 

George  F.  Moore. 

It  will  readily  be  seen  that  this  is  a  valuable  his- 
torical document  covering  in  detail  every  phase  of 
Roman  and  Greek  festivals.  A  weekly  Sunday  fes- 
tival was  utterly  unknown  to  either  pagan  nation. 
JSTo  weekly  worship  or  sacredness  whatever  attached 
to  Sunday.  Our  Advent  brethren,  if  candid,  must 
abandon  that  theory. 

To  make  surety  doubly  sure,  I  will  introduce  one 
more  witness.  It  will  be  seen  that  all  four  fully 
agree  in  every  item.  This  one  is  from  Prof.  W.  H. 
Westerman,  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madi- 
son, Wis. 

University  of  Wisconsin,  Nov.  13,  1913. 
Eev.  D.  M.  Canright, 

Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 

^  Dear  Sir ;— I  shall  answer  your  questions 
briefly,  and  m  the  order  in  which  you  sent  them. 

1.  The  pagan  Greeks  and  Romans  never  had  a 
weekly  day  of  rest. 

2.  They  never  had  a  weekly  holiday  or  festival 

3.  They  never  had  a  special  day  in  the  week  on 


114     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

which  they  made  offerings  or  prayers  to  heathen 
gods.  (Neither  the  pagan  Greeks  nor  the  Eomans 
recognized  a  seven-day  division  or  week  division  in 
the  month.) 

4.  They  made  no  offerings  or  prayers  on  Sunday 
to  their  gods  any  more  than  on  other  days. 

5.  The  seven-day  period  of  dividing  the  month 
or  the  week  was  never  adopted  into  the  calendar  of 
the  pagan  Greeks.  It  appears  in  the  Koman 
calendar  after  the  time  of  Theodosius,  or  after  391 
A.  D.,  but  the  week,  or  seven-day  period,  first  ap- 
pears in  Koman  law  in  a  constitution  of  Constantine, 
promulgated  in  321  A.  D.  This  appears  in  the  Code 
of  Justinian. 

The  seven-day  division  of  the  month,  which  is,  of 
course  from  the  standpoint  of  the  calendar,  a  pretty 
cumbersome  method  of  division,  comes  from  the 
ancient  Hebrews,  w^hose  Sabbath,  falling  on  every 
Saturday,  early  became  a  period  of  rest.  The  word, 
Sabbath,  means,  probably,  the  "  divider."  ^  The 
early  Christians,  for  example,  Paul,  did  not  think  it 
necessary  for  the  Christian  communities  to  observe 
the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Usually,  however,  they  did 
observe  it.  In  the  first  two  centuries  of  our  era 
they  developed  the  custom  of  observing  the  Lord's 
Day  with  prayer  and  common  meals,  and  out  of 
this,  and  the  Jewish  day  of  rest,  arose  our  practice 
of  observing  Sunday. 

I  have  been  very  glad  to  be  of  service  to  you. 
Sincerely  yours, 

W.  H.  "Westerman. 

December  18,  19U. 
Key.  D.  M.  Canright, 
Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 

Dear  Sir : — I  will  again  answer  your  ques- 
tions in  the  order  in  which  you  asked  them  of  me. 


PAGANS  HAD  NO  SUNDAY  WOESHIP       115 

1.  In  the  constitution  of  Constantine  of  A.  D.  321, 
which  spoke  of  the  "  venerable  day  of  the  sun," 
Constantine  regards  Sunday  as  venerable  undoubt- 
edly from  the  Christian  standpoint.  It  had  been  so 
regarded  by  the  Christians  since  the  second  cen- 
tury, as  the  day  of  the  Kesurrection.  It  would, 
therefore,  be  venerable  to  Constantine,  who  had  al- 
ready legalized  the  Christian  religion.  If  it  was  in 
any  way  venerable  or  a  holiday  to  the  pagans,  so 
far  as  my  information  goes,  the  pagans  must  have 
adopted  the  practice  from  the  Christians. 

2.  Apollo  was  not  worshipped  on  any  stated 
day  of  the  week  or  month  more  than  any  other. 

3.  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  proof  that 
the  early  Christians  were  led  to  observe  Sunday  by 
the  example  of  any  pagan  worship  upon  that  day. 
Indeed,  I  think  TertuUian's  statements,  quoted  by 
you,  from  Chapter  XYI  of  his  "  Apology,"  goes  to 
show  that  the  pagans  did  not  worship  the  sun  upon 
that  day,  rather  than  the  opposite. 

Yery  sincerely  yours, 

W.  H.  Westeeman. 

The  united  testimony  of  these  high  authorities  is 
decisive.  JS'either  the  pagan  Eomans  nor  the 
Greeks  had  any  weekly  day  of  rest  from  work,  or 
any  weekly  festival,  or  any  weekly  day  for  wor- 
ship. They  made  no  use  of  a  week  of  seven  days 
for  anything.  Professor  Moore  says  it  had  no  use  in 
common  life.  E'otice  further  :  The  old  astrological 
week  of  seven  days  had  no  rest  day.  The  idea  of  a 
rest  day  once  a  week  was  unknown  to  the  pagan 
Eomans  and  Greeks  till  they  learned  it  of  the  Jews 
and  Christians  centuries  after  Christ.  The  edict  of 
Constantine,  a.  d.  321,  was  the  very  first  time  the 


f  XV' 


r^i^ 


4t^  '^h%M<V  -<Al<j'Otti 


116      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

week  of  seven  days  was  recognized  in  Koman  law. 
All  history  agrees  in  this  and  it  is  a  decisive  fact 
showing  that,  up  to  that  date,  the  Komans  had 
made  no  use  of  our  week  of  seven  days,  hence,  did 
not,  and  could  not,  have  observed  Sunday  as  a  day 
of  rest.  There  was  no  religious  idea  connected 
with  the  naming  of  the  days  from  the  planets,  as 
Sunday  from  the  sun,  Monday  from  the  moon,  etc. 

All  four  of  these  specialists  in  ancient  history 
agree  in  answering  these  questions  though  neither 
one  knew  that  they  had  been  submitted  to  the 
others ;  yet  all  four  exactly  agree  in  every  particular, 
though  widely  scattered,  London,  Washington, 
Massachusetts,  and  Wisconsin.  Such  an  unanimous 
agreement  would  settle  any  question  in  a  court  of 
law. 

I  accidentally  learned  that  J.  W.  Moncrieff, 
A.  M.,  D.  D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Church  His- 
tory, University  of  Chicago,  had  carefully  studied 
Seventh-Day  Adventism,  especially  on  this  subject. 
So  I  sent  him  this  chapter  for  examination.  He 
wrote  me  as  follows  : 

University/  of  Chicago^  May  13,  1915. 
Eev.  D.  M.  Canright  : 

I  appreciate  very  much  the  privilege  of  read- 
ing the  two  chapters  of  your  forthcoming  book,  and 
shall  certainly  want  a  copy  of  it  when  it  is  out. 
Seventy  years  ago,  when  Seventh-Day  Adventism 
was  born,  when  people  possessed  a  very  meager 
amount  of  information  concerning  the  ancients, 
and  when  even  the  great  Samuel  Johnson's  Dic- 
tionary  contained  the  statement  that  "The  divi- 


PAGANS  HAD  NO  SUNDAY  WORSHIP        117 

sion  of  time  by  weeks  hath  been  universally  observed 
in  the  world,  not  only  amongst  the  civilized,  but 
likewise  among  the  most  barbarous,  nations"  (I 
quote  from  the  edition  of  1819),  it  was  excusable  in 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  to  relate  Sunday  observ- 
ance to  pagan  Roman  Sunday  observance.  But  in 
the  last  fifty  years  an  enormous  amount  of  research 
into  antiquarian  life  has  been  accomplished  by 
reliable,  competent  historians,  and  when,  with  one 
accord,  they  proclaim  the  previously  held  notion  to 
be  a  myth,  pure  and  simple,  with  no  support  in 
well  ascertained  facts,  it  is  high  time  some  one  is 
bringing  these  facts  which  are  to  be  found  iu  every 
recent  standard  encyclopedia  in  the  articles  on 
'*  Calendar  "  and  "  Week  "  to  the  minds  of  the  un- 
informed who  are  confused  by  a  doctrine  wholly  at 
variance  with  now  ascertained  historical  fact.  I 
have  consulted  sixteen  encyclopedias  and  diction- 
aries, and  they  differ  in  no  essential  detail  in  their 
treatment  of  the  subject. 

Sincerely  yours, 

J.  W.  MONCRIEFF. 

It  will  be  seen  this  historian  fully  agrees  with  the 
four  preceding  ones.  Having  given  special  atten- 
tion to  this  particular  subject,  his  testimony  is  of 
great  value  in  confirming  the  other. 

I  consulted  a  graduate  of  Michigan  State  Uni- 
versity who  has  for  four  years  made  a  specialty  of 
teaching  Eoman  history  in  the  high  school.  I 
asked  her  if  the  Romans  had  any  weekly  rest  day, 
or  day  of  worship.  She  said,  "  No,"  and  gave  me 
"  Roman  Festivals,"  by  Fowler,  as  her  text  book. 
Two  university  professors  referred  me  to  this  same 
book,  so  it  is  good  authority.     The  Preface,  page  7, 


S 


118      ORIGIN   OF  THE   LORD'S   DAY   OBSERVANCE 

says  :  "  A  week  of  eight  days  was  introduced  at  an 
early  period."  Notice,  it  was  eight  days,  not  seven ; 
and  the  eighth  day  was  simply  a  market  day,  not  a 
day  of  worship.  A  large  number  of  festivals  are 
fully  described  but  there  is  in  all  the  book  no  ref- 
erence to  any  rest  day,  or  day  of  worship,  on  Sun- 
day. If  there  had  been  such  a  rest  day,  the  author 
would  certainly  have  named  it. 

The  Komans,  centuries  after  Christ,  learned  the 
week  of  seven  days,  partly  from  Egyptian  astrology 
and  partly  from  Christians  and  Jews.  The  "  Stand- 
ard Dictionary,"  Article  "Week,"  says :  "  It  was  not 
introduced  into  the  Eoman  calendar  till  after  the 
reign  of  Theodosius  in  the  fourth  century."  The 
"  Universal  Dictionary  of  the  English  Language," 
Article  "  Week,"  says  :  "  During  the  early  cen- 
turies of  their  history  the  Greeks  and  Komans  had 
not  the  institution  of  the  week." 

Webster's  Dictionary,  Article  "  Week,"  says : 
"  The  week  did  not  enter  into  the  calendar  of  the 
Greeks,  and  was  not  introduced  at  Kome  till  after 
the  reign  of  Theodosius."  Constantine  had  been 
dead  over  forty  years  before  Theodosius  began  to 
reign.  So  at  the  time  when  Constantine  issued  his 
Sunday  law,  a.  d.  321,  his  pagan  subjects  did  not 
use  the  week  of  seven  days,  hence,  could  not  have 
kept  the  first  day  of  our  week  till  taught  it  by 
Christians  and  required  by  Constantine's  law. 

Prof.  A.  Kauschenbusch,  of  Eochester  Theolog- 
ical Seminary,  quotes  Lotz  thus :  "  It  is  a  vain 
thing  to  attempt  to  prove  that  the  Greeks  and  Eo- 


PAGANS   HAD   NO   SUNDAY   WORSHIP        119 

mans  had  anything  resembling  the  Sabbath.  Such 
opinion  is  refuted  even  by  this,  that  the  Roman 
writers  ridicule  the  Sabbath  as  something  peculiar  to 
the  Jews.  In  proof  he  cites  many  passages  from  the 
Roman  poets,  and  one  from  Tacitus.  Seneca  also 
condemned  the  Sabbath  observance  of  the  Jews  as  a 
waste  of  time  by  which  a  seventh  part  of  life  was 
lost."  *  Herzog  says  ;  "  No  special  religious  cele- 
bration of  any  one  day  of  the  week  can  be  pointed 
out  in  any  one  of  the  pagan  religions"  (Article 
"  Sabbath  " ). 

The  renowned  Max  MuUer  in  "  Chips  from  a  Ger- 
man Work  Shop,"  Vol.  Y,  page  116,  says :  "  It  is 
well  known  that  the  names  of  the  seven  days  of  the 
week  are  derived  from  the  names  of  the  planets, 
and  it  is  equally  well  known  that  in  Europe  the 
system  of  weeks  and  week  days  is  comparatively  of 
very  modern  origin.  It  was  not  a  Greek,  nor  a 
Roman,  nor  a  Hindu,  but  a  Jewish  or  Babylonian 
invention." 

The  early  Christian  Father,  TertuUian,  A.  D.  200, 
bears  a  decisive  testimony  that  the  pagans  had  no 
weekly  festival,  did  not  keep  the  Lord's  Day  with 
Christians.  Reproving  Christians  for  attending 
heathen  feasts,  he  says :  "  Oh,  truer  fealty  of  the 
heathen  to  their  own  religion  which  taketh  to  itself 
no  rite  of  the  Christians.  We  are  not  afraid  lest 
we  be  openly  declared  to  be  heathen !  If  thou 
must  needs  have  some  indulgence  for  the  flesh  too, 
thou  hast  it  and  thou  hast  not  only  as  many  days  as 


120      OKIGIN   OF  THE   LOP.D'S   DAY   OBSERVANCE 

they,  but  even  more.  For  the  heathen  festival  is 
on  hut  one  day  in  every  year^  thine  uj^on  every  eighth 
day.  Gather  out  the  several  solemn  feasts  of  the 
heathen  and  set  them  out  in  order  ;  they  will  not 
be  able  to  make  up  a  pentecost."  ' 

JS'otice  that  he  says  the  heathen  did  not  have  a 
festival  on  the  Lord's  Day,  nor  on  Pentecost,  and 
that  the  heathen  festivals  came  only  "  once  a  year^'' 
not  every  vyreek,  like  the  Christian  Day.  He  says 
that  all  their  feast  days,  if  gathered  together,  would 
not  be  as  much  as  Pentecost.  This  is  decisive,  that 
the  heathen  did  not  have  a  weekly  festival  day, 
nor  did  they  have  a  festival  on  the  same  day  the 
Christians  did ;  viz.,  on  the  Lord's  Day. 

Johnson's ''  New  Universal  Encyclopedia,"  Article 
"  "Week,"  says :  "  The  Greeks  divided  the  month 
into  periods  of  ten  days,  and  the  Romans  gathered 
the  days  into  periods  of  eight  days  ;  with  both,  the 
first  day  of  a  period  was  market  day,  on  which 
country  people  came  to  town  and  stirred  up  both 
business  and  public  life.  The  period  of  seven  days, 
the  week  proper,  was  introduced  to  the  Eomans 
and  Greeks,  partly  by  Christianity,  partly  by  Egyp- 
tian astronomy." 

This  demolishes  the  theory  that  keeping  the  first 

day  of  our  Christian  week  came  to  Christians  from 

the  pagan  Romans.     Exactly  the  opposite  is  true. 

^  The  Jew  and  Christians  taught  it  to  the  pagan  Ro- 

I  mans. 

"^  Schaff,  in  his   "  Church  History,"   says :  "  The 

1  ''  Ante-Niciune  Lib.,"  Vol.  XI,  pp.  162-163. 


PAGANS  HAD   NO   SUNDAY   WORSHIP        121 

pagan  Eomans  paid  no  more  regard  to  the  Christian 
Sunday  than  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath." 

The  "Encyclopedia  Americana,"  Article  "Week," 
says  :  "  The  Komans  and  Greeks  each  divided  the 
months  into  periods,  and  were  not  acquainted  with 
the  w^eek  till  a  late  period.  The  Eomans  had,  how- 
ever, for  civil  uses,  as  the  arrangement  of  market 
days,  a  cycle  of  eight  days,  the  ninth  being  the  re- 
curring one,  instead  of  the  eighth  as  with  us." 

I  have  before  me  a  book  of  160  pages,  entitled, 
"  Sunday  is  the  Christian  Sabbath,  or  Lord's  Day," 
by  M.  He  MacLead,  Pueblo,  Colo.  It  is  the  most 
exhaustive  and  scholarly  work  I  have  yet  found  on 
the  history  of  the  Sunday  question  in  the  first  four 
centuries.  He  carefully  quotes  a  large  number  of 
high  authorities  showing  that  the  pagan  Eomans 
and  Greeks  had  no  weekly  day  of  rest  or  worship 
on  any  day  of  the  Aveek.  On  the  subject  of  heathen 
rest  days  he  says:  "I  have  given  it  an  uncom- 
promising consideration.  It  was  not  without  a 
study  of  the  matter  that  I  ventured  even  to  my- 
self a  final  and  unchangeable  denial  of  any  truth 
in  the  claim."  What  the  ancient  Egyptians,  Bab- 
ylonians, or  other  ancient  nations  believed  or  did 
has  nothing  to  do  with  our  question.  It  is  claimed 
by  Adventists  that  Sunday,  as  a  day  of  rest  and 
worship,  came  into  the  Church  from  pagan  Eome. 
Hence,  that  is  the  only  question  to  settle.  The 
simple  fact  that  Sunday  was  named  from  the  sun, 
dedicated  to  the  sun,  or  was  sacred  to  the  sun,  does 
not  furnish  the  slightest  evidence  that  people  ceased 


122      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

work  on  that  day.  Every  day  in  the  work  was 
named  from  some  supposed  deity  and  was  sacred 
to  that  god.  ''  The  World's  Standard  Dictionary  " 
says:  "Monday,  the  day  sacred  to  the  moon." 
Did  pagans  worship  the  moon  that  day  ?  Did  they 
cease  work  that  day  ?  Saturday  was  Saturn's  day, 
sacred  to  Saturn.  Did  they  rest  that  day  ?  So  of 
all  the  days  of  the  week.  If  they  rested  every  day 
named  after  some  god,  when  would  they  work? 
Sunday  was  no  more  sacred  than  any  other  day 
and  pagans  reverenced  none. 

So  plain  is  the  evidence  on  this  subject  that  some 
of  the  best  read  Adventists  have  admitted  that 
pagans  did  not  rest  from  work  on  Sunday.  Thus 
Elder  J.  H.  Waggoner  says  of  Constantine's  Sun- 
day law,  A.  D.  321 :  "  Though  the  venerable  day  of 
the  sun  had  long — very  long — been  venerated  by 
them  and  their  heathen  ancestors,  the  idea  of  rest 
from  worldly  labor  in  his  worship  was  entirely 
new."  *  Mark  this  confession,  for  it  gives  up  the 
main  pillar  of  their  argument  in  their  effort  to 
prove  that  Sunday -keeping  was  taken  from  the 
pagans.  The  pagans  never  kept  Sunday.  It  was 
a  new  idea  to  them  when  they  were  required  to 
cease  work  that  day!  Where  did  they  get  that 
new  idea  ?  From  the  emperor  who  had  just  re- 
cently professed  Christianity.  He  got  it  from  his 
Christian  brethren  who  had  always  kept  it !  See 
the  folly  of  arguing  that  the  pagans  taught  Chris- 
tians to  keep  Sunday,  when  the  pagans  them- 
>  '*  Replies  to  Elder  Canright,"  p.  130. 


PAGANS  HAD  NO   SUNDAY   WORSHIP        123 

selves  had  never  kept  it.     Here  is  another  con- 
fession : 

Elder  L.  E.  Conradi,  Seventh-Day  Adventist,  au- 
thor of  "History  of  the  Sabbath,"  edition  of  1912, 
in  a  letter  to  me  dated  Hamburg,  February  9, 1914, 
says :  "  A  weekly  rest  day  from  work  and  solely 
dedicated  to  divine  worship  was  unknown  in  heath- 
enism and  only  known  among  the  people  of  Israel." 
In  answer  to  my  question,  "  Did  the  pagan  Eomans 
keep  Sunday  as  a  religious  day  ?  "  he  says  :  "  We 
never  claimed  that.  The  idea  of  keeping  a  day 
means,  in  the  present  age,  resting  from  work  and 
giving  the  time  solely  to  worship.  But  this  the 
pagans  never  did.  They  only  made  prayers  to  the 
sun-god  and  then  followed  their  regular  work." 

Here  we  have  two  witnesses  from  Seventh-Day 
Adventists  themselves,  confessing  that  the  pagans 
had  no  weekly  day  of  rest  from  common  work. 
Of  course,  they  could  say  nothing  else,  for  all  his- 
tory says  the  same.  So  then  this  point  is  settled 
beyond  denial. 

"  Admissions  in  favor  of  truth  from  the  ranks  of 
its  enemies  constitute  the  highest  kind  of  evidence." 
These  confessions  from  the  two  Adventist  elders 
give  up  the  question,  as  any  candid  person  must 
see. 

Elder  Conradi,  above  quoted,  says  of  the  pagans : 
"  They  only  made  prayers  to  the  sun-god  and  then 
followed  their  regular  work."  Here  he  assumes 
that  the  pagans  made  Sunday  a  special  day  of  wor- 
ship when  they  made  prayers  to  the  sun-god.    He 


124      OKTGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

asserts  that  for  which  there  is  not  a  particle  of 
proof.  No  prayers  were  made  to  the  heathen  gods 
on  Sunday  more  than  on  Saturday  or  any  other 
day.  He  cannot  produce  a  scrap  of  proof  for  his 
assertion.  The  quotations  given  above  from  the 
historians  of  the  several  universities  squarely  deny 
what  he  asserts  without  any  proof.  Did  all  these 
pagans  leave  their  homes  every  Sunday  and  go  to 
their  temples  and  offer  prayers  ?  No.  They  had 
no  meetings  whatever  that  day,  nor  on  any  other 
day  of  the  week.  On  some  special  occasion,  as  a 
birthday,  or  recovery  from  sickness,  or  to  avert 
some  feared  evil,  or  on  some  yearly  festival,  per- 
sons would  go  and  offer  incense  or  gifts  to  the 
gods.  That  was  all.  There  was  no  regular  day  in 
the  week  for  any  offerings  of  gifts  or  prayers. 
The  Adventists  have  invented  a  pagan  Sunday  of 
rest  and  worship  which  never  existed. 

No  pagan  nation  to-day  keeps  Sunday.  The 
great  Chinese  nation,  numbering  four  hundred  mil- 
lions, keeps  no  day.  Elder  W.  A.  Westworth,  Sev- 
enth-Day Adventist,  in  the  Battle  Creek,  Mich., 
Daily  Journal,  May  18,  1914,  says :  "  I  have  put 
in  15,000  miles  in  inland  China  visiting  our  sta- 
tions. The  Chinese  have  no  week,  nor  any  day  of 
the  week,  kept  as  a  weekly  rest."  The  same  is 
true  of  the  Japanese,  67,000,000,  the  Koreans,  the 
millions  of  pagans  in  Africa,  etc.  Then  the  Mo- 
hammedans, numbering  200,000,000,  rest  on  Friday, 
and  all  work  on  Saturday  and  Sunday.  They 
copied  the  idea  of  a  weekly  rest  day  from  the  Jews 


PAGANS  HAD  NO  SUNDAr  WORSHIP       125 

and  Christians  in  the  seventh  century  after  Christ. 
India  has  a  population  of  315,000,000.  They  have 
no  weekly  rest  day.  The  entire  population  of  the 
earth  is  sixteen  hundred  millions.  Of  these  only 
six  hundred  millions  believe  in  the  Bible  and  Chris- 
tianity, and  hence  nominally  respect  Sunday.  So 
ten  hundred  millions,  nearly  two-thirds  of  the 
people  on  the  globe,  have  no  regard  for  Sunday  or 
Saturday  and  never  had.  All  on  this  globe  who 
now,  or  at  any  other  time,  have  ever  rested  on 
Sunday  have  learned  it  from  Christians.  So  Chris- 
tians could  never  have  learned  it  from  pagans,  for 
none  of  them  ever  kept  Sunday. 

The  observers  of  the  seventh  day  continually 
assert  that  Sunday  with  pagans  was  always  a 
popular  festival  day,  a  day  for  religious  assemblies 
^nd  pagan  worship,  then  of  festivity  or,  perhaps, 
work,  by  some.  The  above  testimony  from  numer- 
ous reliable  authors  squarely  contradicts  these 
assertions.  Listen  now  to  the  Adventists.  Of 
Sunday  they  say:  "They  are  assembly  days  at 
early  morn,  then  given  up  to  busy  pleasure  and  to 
labor."  "Many  of  his  [Constantine's]  pagan  sub- 
jects reverenced  the  same  day  as  a  day  of  prayer 
in  honor  of  the  sun."  Again :  "  The  very  effect  of 
joining  the  pagans  in  their  devotions  on  Sunday 
was  to  let  down  the  bars  which  God  had  put  up."  ' 
Here  is  another :  "  The  bishops  would  very  readily 
adopt  the  most  popular  heathen  festival  day  [Sun- 

^  "History  of  the  Sabbath,"  edition  1912,  pp.  373,  384,385, 
363. 


126      ORIGIN   OF  THE   LORD's  DAY    OBSERVANCE 

day]  in  order  to  gain  the  favor  of  the  pagans." 
"  The  observance  of  Sunday  was  itself  the  custom 
which  was  brought  into  the  Church  by  converts 
from  heathenism."  "  Sunday  the  wild  solar  holi- 
day of  all  pagan  times." ' 

Here  is  one  from  a  Seventh-Day  Baptist,  Kev. 
A.  H.  Lewis,  in  "  History  of  the  Sabbath  and 
Sunday,"  page  70 :  "  Sunday,  already  a  festival 
among  the  heathen."  "  The  sun's  day  had  been  a 
leading  weekly  pagan  festival  for  many  centuries  " 
(page  521).  Elder  Andrews  in  "  Testimony  of  the 
Fathers,"  pages  26,  34,  43,  says:  "The  Koman 
people  observed  a  festival  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week."  "  The  day  commonly  honored  as  a  festival 
by  the  Komans." 

These  are  only  samples  of  what  is  repeated  over 
and  over  by  opposers  of  the  Lord's  Day.  These 
assertions  are  made,  not  only  without  proof,  but 
directly  contrary  to  all  reliable  testimony,  as  we 
have  quoted  above.  There  was  absolutely  nothing 
of  the  kind  with  Eomans  or  Greeks. 

Elder  Waggoner  says :  "  Sunday  is  in  every 
feature  a  heathen  institution,"  ^  Let  us  see. 
What  are  the  features  of  Sunday  as  kept  by 
Christians?  1.  All  secular  work  ceases.  2.  Peo- 
ple dress  up  and  go  to  church.  3.  A  hymn  is 
sung.  4.  Prayer  is  offered.  5.  Scriptures  are 
read.     6.  A  sermon  is  preached.     7.  A  collection 

1" Fathers  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  by  E.  J.  Waggoner,  pp. 
324,  326,  328. 

»  "Replies  to  Canright,"  p.  133. 


PAGANS   HAD  NO   SUNDAY   WOESHIP        127 

is  taken.  8.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  celebrated. 
9.  Benediction  is  pronounced.  These  are  the 
features  of  the  Christian  observance  of  Sunday. 
Waggoner  says  that  in  every  feature  it  is  pagan ! 
How  many  of  these  features  can  be  found  in  the 
pagan  day?  Absolutely  not  one.  They  did  not 
even  cease  work  that  day  as  he  himself  says  above. 
Is  not  his  assertion  recklessly  untrue  ?  Could  the 
pagan  Eomans  give  to  the  Christians  these  features 
of  Sunday  observance  when  they  themselves  never 
had  one  of  them  ?  It  is  absurd.  But  Adventists 
believe  and  teach  it  as  a  fact  while  all  reliable 
evidence  shows  that  it  is  all  absolutely  untrue. 

The  strong,  clear,  united  historical  quotations 
given  in  this  chapter  prove,  beyond  denial,  that 
the  pagan  Komans  never  had  any  religious  regard 
for  Sunday,  never  had  the  week  of  seven  days  in 
common  life,  or  in  their  calendar,  or  in  their  civil 
or  religious  laws.  The  very  first  deference  they 
ever  paid  to  Sunday  was  in  obedience  to  the  law  ' 
of  Constantine  the  first  Christian  emperor.  j 

Because  one  day  was  named  Sunday,  sun's  day,  ^, 
and  because  the  ancient  Babylonians  and  others  '^ 
worshipped  the  sun,  therefore  Adventists  always 
assume  and  assert  that  Sunday  was  specially  de- 
voted to  the  worship  of  the  sun.  Thus  one  writer 
says  :  "  The  worship  of  the  sun  is  one  of  the  oldest 
and  most  universal  forms  of  idolatry,  and  Sunday 
was  the  special  day  honored  by  the  sun  worship- 
per." Another  writer  says  :  "  The  very  name  Sun- 
day is  a  standing  witness  that  it  was  the  day  of 


128      OKiaiN  OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

sun  worship."  This  is  simply  in  the  sound  ol 
names,  nothing  more,  without  any  foundation,  in 
fact. 

This  ready  assumption  is  entirely  groundless. 
Each  day  of  the  week  was  named  from  some 
planet :  as  Sunday  from  the  sun,  Monday  from  the 
moon,  Saturday  from  Saturn,  etc.  The  first  hour 
of  each  day  was  supposed  to  be  ruled  over  by  the 
planet  of  that  day.  This  was  purely  an  astrolog- 
ical invention  for  civil  purposes  and  had  no  relig- 
ious significance  whatever ;  no  idea  of  worship  was 
connected  with  the  name  of  any  one  of  these  days. 
Keligious  worship  had  nothing  to  do  in  naming 
the  days.  The  idea  was  purely  and  only  astrolog- 
ical. Thus  Johnson's  "New  Universal  Encyclo- 
pedia," Article  "  Week,"  says  :  "  It  was  found  as  a 
civil  institution  in  the  very  earliest  times  among 
the  Hindoos,  Persians,  Assyrians,  and  Egyptians. 
But  the  Jews  were  the  only  nation  with  which  the 
week  had  a  religious  significance."  So  also  the 
answers  from  the  above  quoted  historians  all  agree 
that  names  of  the  days  are  purely  astrological,  not 
religious.  Sun  worship  had  no  connection  with 
Sunday  whatever,  no  more  than  any  other  day. 


VI 

HISTOEICAL  EVIDENCE  THAT  OUR  LORD^S 

DAY  WAS  OBSERVED  FROM  THE  TIME 

OP  THE  APOSTLES 

WE  will  now  present  historical  evidence, 
proving  that  the  observance  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  as  a  day  of  worship, 
was  universal  among  Christians  in  the  days  im- 
mediately following  the  apostles.  If  Sunday  ob- 
servance existed  here,  then  it  did  not  originate 
several  hundred  years  later  with  Constantine,  or 
with  the  Papacy.  We  will  begin  soon  after  the 
close  of  the  New  Testament. 

pliny's  lettee,  a.  d.  107 

Pliny  was  governor  of  Bithynia,  Asia  Minor, 

A.  D.  106-108.     He  wrote  A.  D.  107  to  Trajan,  the 

emperor,  concerning  the  Christians,  thus:  "They 

were  wont  to  meet  together,  on  a  stated  day  before 

it  was  light,  and  sing  among  themselves  alternately 

a  hymn  to  Christ  as  God.     .     .    .    When  these 

things  were  performed,   it  was  their  custom  to 

separate  and  then  to  come  together  again  to  a  meal 

which  they  ate  in  common  without  any  disorder."  * 

That  this  was  Sunday  is  evident.     1.  They  came 

together  to  worship  Christ.     2.  They  assembled  to 

^Home's  **  Introduction,"  Vol,  I,  Chap,  iii,  Sec.  2,  p.  84, 

129 


130      OEIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

eat  a  meal  together,  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
"  stated  day  "  for  this  was  Sunday.  "  Upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week  when  the  disciples  came  to- 
gether to  break  bread"  (Acts  xx.  T).  This  is 
exactly  parallel  to  Pliny's  statement. 

Eusebius,  the  historian,  a.  d.  324,  says  :  "  I  think 
that  he  [the  Psalmist]  describes  the  morning 
assemblies  in  which  we  are  accustomed  to  assemble 
throughout  the  world."  "  By  this  is  prophetically 
signified  the  service  which  is  performed  very  early 
and  every  morning  of  the  resurrection  day  through- 
out the  whole  world."  *  This  is  exactly  what  Pliny 
says :  They  met  together  "  on  a  stated  day  before 
it  was  light ; "  they  assembled  to  eat  together  a 
meal.  Eusebius  says  it  was  the  custom  of  all 
Christians  "  to  meet  very  early  and  every  morning 
of  the  resurrection  day."  This  ought  to  settle  it 
and  does.  Pliny's  stated  day  w^as  Sunday.  This 
was  in  the  very  region  where  the  apostles  labored, 
and  only  eleven  years  after  St.  John  died. 

The  "  Advent  History  of  the  Sabbath,"  edition 
of  1912,  is  compelled  to  admit  that  Sunday  observ- 
ance was  in  the  Christian  Church  at  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century.  The  author  says :  "  The 
results  of  our  investigation  concerning  the  origin 
of  Sunday  [is]  that  it  was  not  introduced  into  the 
Christian  Church  until  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century"  (page  450).  That  is  exactly  the  date 
when  Pliny  wrote, — immediately  following  the 
death  of  the  last  apostle. 

»  "Sabbath  Manual,"  p.  125. 


BARNABAS  131 

BAENABAS,  A.  D.  120 

This  epistle  was  highly  prized  in  the  earliest 
Churches,  read  in  some  of  them  as  part  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  is  found  in  the  oldest  manuscript  of  the 
Scriptures,  nrnnely  the  Sinaitio.  That  it  was  written 
by  a  pious  man  of  learning  and  influence  cannot  be 
doubted. 

Johnson's  "  Kew  Universal  Encyclopedia  "  says : 
"  It  is  frequently  cited  by  the  Fathers,  and  was  by 
many  regarded  as  being  of  authority  in  the  Church ; 
some  even  claiming  for  it  a  place  in  the  sacred 
canon." 

This  is  a  summary  of  the  best  modern  criticism 
as  to  the  date,  character  and  authority  of  the  epistle 
of  Barnabas.  Bead  and  reverenced  in  the  Church 
as  next  to  the  Gospels  themselves  as  early  as  A.  D. 
120,  or  within  twenty-four  years  of  the  death  of 
St.  John,  it  shows  what  Christians  believed  and 
practiced  immediately  after  the  apostles.  In  this 
epistle  we  read :  "  Incense  is  a  vain  abomination 
unto  me,  and  your  new  moons  and  Sabbaths  I  can- 
not endure.  He  has,  therefore,  abolished  these 
things  "  (Chapter  II).  Elder  Andrews  admits  that 
"  he  presently  asserts  the  abolition  of  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Lord."'  Coming  to  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  Barnabas  says ;  "  Wherefore,  also,  we  keep 
the  eighth  day  with  joyfulness,  the  day,  also,  on 
which  Jesus  rose  again  from  the  dead "  (Chap- 
ter XY). 

Notice  this  fact :  All  admit  that  this  epistle  of 

*  "  Testimony,"  etc.,  p.  22. 


132      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

Barnabas  was  in  existence  in  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century,  or  not  later  than  the  middle  of  it. 
At  that  time  it  was  supposed  by  the  Churches  to 
have  been  written  as  a  part  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures.  It  is  in  the  oldest  copy  of  the  Bible 
right  after  Kevelation.  It  states  in  positive  terms 
that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished  and  that 
Christians  kept  the  day  of  the  resurrection.  Now 
would  the  Churches,  week  after  week,  read  this 
language  as  inspired,  and  then  not  keep  Sunday  ? 
That  is  not  reasonable.  Hence  this  book  does 
show  what  Christians  believed  and  practiced  at 
that  date,  A.  D.  120. 

But  Adventists  say  this  writing  was  a  forgery. 
It  was  no  such  thing.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the 
whole  epistle  claiming  that  the  author  was  the 
apostle  Barnabas.  No  name  is  attached  to  it  nor 
is  there  any  claim  that  it  was  written  by  an  apostle. 
For  some  reason,  not  now  known,  it  came  to  be 
attributed  to  Barnabas.  The  book  of  Hebrews  has 
no  name  to  it ;  it  is  supposed  that  Paul  wrote  it 
and  we  accept  it  as  such,  but  some  doubt  it,  and  it 
cannot  be  proved.  Shall  we  call  it  a  forgery  ? 
Just  as  well  as  to  call  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  a 
forgery. 

Here,  once  for  all,  we  will  notice  the  chief  argu- 
ment on  which  Adventists  depend  to  invalidate  the 
testimony  of  all  the  early  Fathers  in  favor  of  the 
Lord's  Day.  They  try  to  show  that  Barnabas, 
Justin  Martyr,  Origen,  etc.,  held  some  notions 
which  none  of  us  now  believe.     Hence  their  testi- 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTLES  133 

mony  must  be  unreliable.  This  argument  they  re- 
peat over  and  over  at  great  length  in  the  case  of 
every  early  writer  who  witnesses  for  Sunday.  Now 
it  occurs  that  one  of  their  writers,  Elder  J.  H. 
"Waggoner,  when  it  happens  to  suit  his  purpose, 
has  himself  answered  this  argument.  Of  the  Re- 
formers he  says :  "  We  think  the  Reformers  re- 
tained a  grievous  error  of  their  early  training  ;  but 
that  does  not  invalidate  their  testimony  in  regard 
to  a  matter  of  fact  with  which  they  were  well  ac- 
quainted." * 

Now  apply  that  to  the  early  Fathers.  They 
lived  there,  and  state  over  and  over,  all  agreeing 
in  it,  that  they  themselves  and  all  Christians  then 
observed  Sunday.  This  was  a  simple  matter 
of  fact  with  which  they  were  well  acquainted. 
Waggoner  says  such  testimony  is  reliable.  Of 
course  it  is.  It  proves  beyond  question  that  the 
Lord's  Day  was  an  unquestioned  practice  of  the 
early  Church. 

We  do  not  quote  these  Fathers  to  prove  a  doc- 
trine ;  for  that  we  go  only  to  the  Bible.  We 
quote  them  to  prove  a  simple,  historical  fact,  viz. : 
that  the  early  Christians  did  keep  Sunday,  hence 
it  could  not  have  started  with  the  Popes  centuries 
later. 

THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTLES,  A.  D.  125 

This  was  not  written  by  the  apostles  ;  yet  its  date 
is  very  early.     Some  place  it  as  early  as  A.  D.  80. 

»  ''Replies  to  Canright,"  p.  164. 


134:      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S   DAY   OBSERVANCE 

Professor  Harnack,  of  Berlin,  says  many  place  it 
between  a.  d.  90,  and  A.  d.  120.  This  is  the  date 
most  favored.  It  cannot  be  much  later.  The  New 
York  Independent  says  of  it :  "  By  all  odds  the 
most  important  writing  exterior  to  New  Testa- 
ment." Prof.  D.  K.  Dungan,  President  of  Drake 
University,  says :  "  It  is  evident  that  it  is  not  far 
on  this  side  of  the  death  of  the  apostle  John."  The 
noted  scholar,  Kev.  Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  in  his  "  Sab- 
bath for  Man,"  page  383,  says :  It  was  "  written, 
as  the  best  scholars  almost  unanimously  agree,  not 
later  than  forty  years  after  the  death  of  the  last 
of  the  apostles,  and  during  the  lifetime  of  many 
who  had  heard  John's  teaching."  In  the  preface 
to  this  important  document,  the  editors,  Professors 
Hitchcock  and  Brown  in  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York,  say :  "  The  genuineness  of 
the  document  can  hardly  be  doubted."  "The 
document  belongs  undoubtedly  to  the  second  cen- 
tury ;  possibly  as  far  back  as  120  A.  D. ;  hardly 
later  than  160  "  (Introduction). 

Chapter  fourteen  of  the  "  Teaching  of  the  Apos- 
tles "  says  :  "  But  every  Lord's  Day  do  ye  gather 
yourselves  together,  and  break  bread,  and  give 
thanksgiving,"  etc.  This  testimony  is  clear  and 
decisive  that  the  Lord's  Day  w^as  the  established 
day  of  worship,  at  that  early  day. 

JUSTIN  MARTYR,  A.  D.  140 

I  quote  from  "  The  Testimony  of  the  Fathers," 
by    Elder    Andrews :    "  Justin's    *  Apology  '   was 


JUSTIN   MARTYR  135 

written  at  Kome  about  the  year  140,"  "  and  this 
at  a  distance  of  only  forty-four  years  from  the  date 
of  John's  vision  upon  Fatmos."  "  It  does  not  ap- 
pear that  Justin,  and  those  at  Eome  who  held  with 
him  in  doctrine,  paid  the  slightest  regard  to  the 
ancient  Sabbath.  He  speaks  of  it  as  abolished,  and 
treats  it  with  contempt "  (page  33). 

This  is  the  confession  which  even  the  historian  of 
the  Seventh-Day  Adventists  is  compelled  to  make. 
The  Jewish  Sabbath  was  disregarded  by  Christians 
within  forty-four  years  of  the  death  of  the  last 
apostle.  And  this  is  proven  by  the  testimony  of 
an  eminent  Christian  minister  who  lived  right 
there. 

Justin  in  his  "  Apology  "  for  them  to  the  emperor 
fairly  represented  what  Christians  generally  held 
then,  just  as  he  should  have  done.  Elder  Andrews 
conveys  the  impression  that  Justin  represented  only 
a  small  party  of  apostate  Christians  at  Eome  and 
that  he  is  quite  unreliable.  But  the  facts  are  just 
the  reverse.  He  was  a  Greek,  born  in  Palestine 
and  held  his  "  Dialogue  with  Trypho  "  at  Ephesus, 
Asia  Minor,  in  the  church  where  St.  John  lived  and 
died,  the  very  center  of  the  Eastern  Church,  and 
only  forty-four  years  after  John's  death.  Of  Justin 
the  "  Encyclopedia  Americana  "  says :  "  One  of  the 
earliest  and  most  learned  writers  of  the  Christian 
Church.  .  .  .  He  was  also  equally  zealous  in 
opposing  alleged  heretics."  "  Schaff-Herzog  En- 
cyclopedia "  says :  "  In  these  works  Justin  pro- 
fesses to  present  the  system  of  doctrine  held  by  oM 


136      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

Christians  and  seeks  to  be  orthodox  on  all  points. 
The  only  difference  he  knows  of  as  existing  be- 
tween Christians  concerned  the  millennium.  Thus 
Justin  is  an  incontrovertible  witness  for  the  unity 
of  the  faith  in  the  Church  of  his  day,  and  to  the 
fact  that  the  Gentile  type  of  Christianity  pre- 
vailed." 

Notice  carefully :  At  that  date,  a.  d.  140,  the 
only  difference  among  Christians  was  about  the 
millennium.  Then  they  must  all  have  agreed  in 
keeping  Sunday,  as  Justin  says  that  was  the  day  all 
kept  as  we  will  soon  see. 

"  Eusebius  says  that  he  overshadowed  all  the 
great  men  who  illuminated  the  second  century  by 
the  splendor  of  his  name."  His  writings  are  "  the 
most  important  that  have  come  to  us  from  the 
second  century." ' 

Doctor  Schaff  says  of  him :  "  After  his  conver- 
sion Justin  devoted  himself  wholly  to  the  vindica- 
tion of  the  Christian  religion,  as  an  itinerant 
evangelist,  with  no  fixed  abode."  ^  Not  only  were 
his  books  accepted  without  dispute  as  expressing 
the  practice  of  the  Church,  but  his  itinerant  life, 
now  in  Palestine,  then  in  Kome,  Greece  and 
Ephesus,  enabled  him  to  know  this  practice,  and 
stamps  his  testimony  with  a  force  equal  to  demon- 
stration. So,  then,  Justin  is  an  unimpeachable 
witness  for  the  faith  and  practice  of  Christians 

^  McClintock  and  Strong's  "Encyclopedia,"  Article '*  Justin 
Martyr. ' ' 

«  "Church  History,"  Vol.  I,  p.  482. 


JUSTIN  MARTYR  137 

generally  a  few  years    after    the    death    of    the 
apostles. 

Now  hear  what  Justin  says  about  the  first  day  of 
the  week ;  "  And  on  the  day  called  Sunday,  all 
who  live  in  cities  or  in  the  country  gather  together 
to  one  place,  and  the  memoirs  of  the  apostles  or  the 
writings  of  the  prophets  are  read,  as  long  as  time 
permits ;  then,  when  the  reader  has  ceased,  the 
president  verbally  instructs  and  exhorts  to  the 
imitation  of  these  good  things.  Then  we  all  rise 
together  and  pray,  and,  as  we  before  said,  when  our 
prayer  is  ended,  bread  and  wine  and  water  are 
brought,  and  the  president  in  like  manner  offers 
prayers  and  thanksgivings,  according  to  his  ability, 
and  the  people  assent,  saying.  Amen ;  and  there  is  a 
distribution  to  each,  and  a  participation  of  that  over 
which  thanks  have  been  given,  and  to  those  who  are 
absent  a  portion  is  sent  by  the  deacons.  And  they 
who  are  well  to  do,  and  willing,  give  what  each 
thinks  fit ;  and  what  is  collected  is  deposited  with 
the  president,  who  succors  the  orphans  and  widows, 
and  those  who,  through  sickness  or  any  other  cause, 
are  in  want,  and  those  who  are  in  bonds,  and  the 
strangers  sojourning  among  us,  and,  in  a  word, 
takes  care  of  all  who  are  in  need.  But  Sunday  is 
the  day  on  which  we  all  hold  our  common  assembly, 
because  it  is  the  first  day  on  which  God,  having 
wrought  a  change  in  the  darkness  and  matter,  made 
the  world ;  and  Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour,  on  the 
same  day  rose  from  the  dead.  For  He  was  crucified 
on  the  day  before  that  of  Saturn  (Saturday) ;  and 


138     OBIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSEEVANOE 

on  the  day  after  that  of  Saturn,  which  is  the  day 

of  the  sun,  having  appeared  to  His  apostles  and 

disciples.   He    taught    them   these  things,   which 

;^we  have  submitted  to  you  also  for  your  consider- 

/^"^   ation."' 

o-  T~  This  "Apology"  was  written  by  Justin  when 
Christians  were  being  terribly  persecuted.  It  was 
addressed  to  Antoninus,  the  emperor,  "  also  to  the 
sacred  senate  and  the  whole  Roman  people  in  behalf 
of  those  who  of  all  nations  are  now  unjustly  hated 
and  aspersed."  ^ 

It  was  in  behalf  of  the  entire  Christian  Church  in 
all  the  vast  Koman  Empire,  as  he  plainly  states. 
Hence  it  presents  the  practice  of  the  general 
Church,  not  simply  a  local  church  at  Kome  as  Ad- 
ventists  unfairly  state.  It  was  addressed  to  the 
Koman  emperor  and  the  senate  to  correctly  inform 
them  of  the  faith  and  practice  of  Roman  Christian 
subjects.  Justin  was  martyred  because  he  would 
not  sacrifice  to  pagan  gods.  Notice  that  he  says 
that,  "  On  the  day  called  Sunday,  all  who  live  in 
the  cities^  or  m  the  country  gather  together  to  one 
place,"  etc.  "  But  Sunday  is  the  day  on  which  we 
all  hold  our  common  assembly."  This  practice  was 
general  among  all  Christians  as  far  as  he  had 
travelled,  and  he  was  an  itinerant  preacher  like 
Moody,  or  General  Booth  of  the  Salvation  Army. 
Hence  this  is  positive  proof  that  Sunday-keeping 
was  general  in  the  Christian  Church  at  that  early 

*  "The  First  Apology  of  Justin,"  Chap,  xlvii. 

'  Eusebius,  "Eccl.  History,"  Book  IV,  Chap.xii,  p.  139. 


JUSTIN  MARTYR  139 

date.  Justin  does  not  state  simply  his  opinion,  but 
a  fact  then  existing,  viz.,  that  all  Christians 
"  whether  in  cities  or  country  "  "  in  all  nations  "  held 
their  assemblies  on  Sunday. 

Justin  does  not  call  Sunday  the  Sabbath  nor  the 
Lord's  Day  !  This  is  readily  answered  by  the  fact 
that  Justin  was  writing  to  a  heathen  emperor  who 
would  have  been  wholly  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of 
either  of  those  terms.  But  there  the  naked  facts 
stand,  clear,  positive  and  undeniable,  that  within 
forty-four  years  after  the  book  of  Kevelation  was 
written  Christians  did  hold  their  assemblies  on  Sun- 
day. And  Justin  says  that  Jesus  taught  these  things 
to  the  apostles. 

Probably  the  Jewish  Christians  did  continue  to 
observe  the  Sabbath  the  same  as  they  did  other 
Jewish  customs  for  a  time.  But  even  these  also 
kept  the  Lord's  Day  as  will  be  seen  later. 

Justin  plainly  states  that  the  Gentile  believers 
did  not  keep  the  Sabbath.  He  says :  "  The  Gen- 
tiles who  have  believed  on  Him,  although  they 
neither  keep  the  Sabbath,  nor  are  circumcised,  nor 
observe  the  feasts  "  yet  are  God's  children.' 

So  to-day :  go  to  any  part  of  the  globe  and  wher- 
ever you  find  Christians  of  any  sect  or  nation,  there 
you  find  them  keeping  Sunday.  A  few  Sabbatarians 
of  late  origin  are  the  only  exceptions  to  this.  How 
did  this  universal  custom  come  about  if  not  started  i 
at  the  very  foundation  of  the  Church  by  the  apostles 
themselves  ? 

*  "  Dialogue  with  Trypho,"  Chap.  xxvi. 


140      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

DIONYSIUS,  BISHOP  OF  CORINTH  IN  GREECE, 
A.  D.  170 

But  we  will  hear  further  from  these  Fathers  them- 
selves as  to  whether  they  kept  Sunday.  Dionysius, 
Bishop  of  Corinth,  the  Church  which  Paul  raised  up 
and  to  which  he  gave  the  command  about  Sunday 
collections,  1  Cor.  xvi.  1-2,  says  :  "  We  passed  this 
holy  Lord's  Day,  in  which  we  read  your  letter,  from 
the  constant  reading  of  which  we  shall  be  able  to 
draw  admonition."  '  That  the  Lord's  Day  is  the 
resurrection  day  we  have  seen.  This  term  is  never 
applied  to  any  other  than  the  first  day.  Notice 
that  this  witness  is  from  Greece,  not  Eome.  So  the 
resurrection  day  was  a  "  holy  "  day,  a.  d.  170. 

In  this  chapter  Eusebius  gives  quite  a  lengthy 
account  of  Dionysius  as  a  most  devoted  Christian,  a 
bishop  of  great  and  wide  influence.  He  warned 
others  against  all  heresies  in  many  letters  he  wrote. 
Eusebius  quotes  his  exact  words  about  the  "  Holy 
Lord's  Day  "  as  above.  As  these  letters  were  sent 
to  many  other  Churches  it  shows  that  the  Lord's 
Day  was  by  all  regarded  as  a  holy  day. 

BARDESANES  OF  EDESSA,   SYRIA,  A.  D.   180 

Coming  down  only  ten  years  later,  we  have  the 
testimony  of  the  heretic  Bardesanes,  the  Syrian, 
who  flourished  about  A.  d.  180.  He  belonged  to 
the  sect  of  the  Gnostics  which  was  very  numerous 
all  over  the  far  East.  He  says  ;  "  What  then  shall 
we  say  respecting  the  new  race  of  ourselves  who 

*  Eusebius,  *'  Eccl.  History,"  Book  IV,  Chap,  xxiii. 


BAEDESANES   OF   EDESSA  141 

are  Christians,  whom  in  every  country,  and  in 
every  region  the  Messiah  established  at  His  coming  ? 
For,  lo,  wherever  we  be,  all  of  us  are  called  by  the 
one  name  of  the  Messiah,  Christians,  and  upon  one 
day,  which  is  the  first  day  of  the  week,  we  assem- 
ble ourselves  together." ' 

Notice  that  these  Christians  were  scattered 
widely  "  in  every  country  and  every  region." 
Bardesanes  says  just  the  same  as  Justin  Martyr, 
"  We  assemble  ourselves  together  "  upon  the  first 
day  of  the  week.  These  two  witnesses  are  much 
alike  as  to  Sunday.  Justin,  strictly  orthodox,  says 
that  "  all  in  cities  and  country  "  assemble  on  Sun- 
day. Bardesanes,  heretic,  says  the  same  for  all  the 
countries  of  the  far  East.  The  observance  of  Sun- 
day was  general  both  among  orthodox  and  heretics. 

Notice  here  also  a  refutation  of  the  idea  so 
strongly  urged  by  Sabbatarians,  that  Sunday-keep- 
ing originated  at  Eome,  and  was  for  a  long  time 
confined  there.  Elder  Andrews  has  to  admit  that 
the  Gnostics  at  this  date  used  Sunday  as  a  day  of 
worship.  But,  1.  The  Gnostics  were  emphatically 
an  eastern  sect,  originating  in  Syria,  and  were  most 
numerous  in  Alexandria,  Asia  Minor,  and  the  East. 
Rome  never  had  any  influence  over  them.  Barde- 
sanes himself  lived  at  Edessa,  in  Mesopotamia, 
2,500  miles  east  of  Rome,  on  another  continent,  un- 
der another  nation.  2.  This  sect  was  numerous  in 
the  East  as  early  as  a.  d.  150,  or  fifty-five  years 
after  the  death  of  John.     So  we  have  Sunday-keep- 

*  "  Laws  of  Countries,"  A.  D.  180. 


142      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

ing  not  only  at  Rome,  but  all  over  the  East  as 
early  as  A.  d.  150,  hundreds  of  years  before  there 
was  any  "  Pope  "  at  Rome. 

'No  exception  to  this  can  be  found  whether  ortho- 
dox or  heretic.  All  observe  the  Lord's  Day.  Even 
Sabbatarians  are  compelled  to  admit  this.  Elder 
Andrews  says :  "  Those  Fathers  who  hallow  the 
Sabbath  do  generally  associate  with  it  the  festival 
called  by  them  the  Lord's  Day."  * 

Yes,  while  some  did,  for  a  while,  keep  the  Sabbath, 
yet  even  they,  in  every  instance,  also  kept  the 
Lord's  Day. 

CLEMENT   OF  ALEXANDRIA,  EGYPT,   A.  D.  194 

Clement  was  one  of  the  most  celebrated  of  the 
Christian  Fathers.  He  writes  about  a.  d.  194.  He 
says :  "  He,  in  fulfillment  of  the  precept,  keeps  the 
Lord's  Day  when  he  abandons  an  evil  disposition, 
and  assumes  that  of  the  Gnostic,  glorifying  the 
Lord's  resurrection  in  himself  "  (Book  YII,  Chapter 
XII).  The  Lord's  Day,  it  will  be  seen  here,  and  all 
along,  is  the  resurrection  day.  Clement  lived,  not 
at  Rome,  but  in  Egypt.  So  Sunday-keeping  was 
not  simply  a  Roman  usage,  as  Adventists  claim. 

Adventists  seek  to  discredit  Clement's  testimony 
about  the  Lord's  Day  by  saying  that  he  was  in- 
fluenced by  Greek  philosophy  as  taught  by  Plato, 
Socrates,  etc.  But  this  is  easily  answered  by  the 
fact  that  neither  the  Greeks  in  general,  nor  any  of 
the  philosophers,  ever  practiced,  or  taught,  any  ob- 

*  "  Testimony  of  the  Fathers,"  p.  11. 


TEETULLIAN  OF  AFRICA  143 

servance  of  Sunday.  They  never  knew  anything 
about  a  weekly  day  of  rest  or  worship.  The 
weekly  calendar  was  unknown  to  them  till  taught 
it  by  Christians  at  a  later  date.  (See  Chapter  Y.) 
Hence,  whatever  else  Clement  and  the  Church  at 
Alexandria  gathered  from  Greek  philosophers,  they 
did  not  get  the  Lord's  Day  from  them.  When  they 
adopted  Christianity  they  accepted  the  Lord's  Day 
as  a  part  of  it.  Heathen  Gnosticism  knew  nothing 
of  any  weekly  rest  day  ;  hence.  Christian  Gnostics 
could  not  get  their  Lord's  Day  from  them. 

TERTULLIAN   OF  AFRICA,  A.  D.  200 

TertuUian  was  one  of  the  most  noted  of  the  early 
Fathers.  Was  born  A.  D.  160.  He  was  highly 
educated,  bred  to  the  law,  and  very  talented. 
Brought  up  a  pagan,  he  was  converted  to  Christ 
and  vehemently  opposed  heathenism  ever  after. 
Eadically  severe  in  his  principles,  opposed  to  all 
conformity  to  the  world,  the  laxity  of  the  Roman 
Church  drove  him  to  withdraw  from  it,  which  he 
ever  after  hotly  opposed.  So  he  was  not  a  Roman- 
ist, nor  did  Rome  have  a  particle  of  influence  over 
him  only  to  drive  him  the  other  way.  He  was 
strictly  orthodox  in  faith  and  a  lover  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Hence  if  it  were  true  that  Sunday-keeping, 
as  a  heathen  institution,  was  being  introduced  into 
the  Church  by  Rome,  TertuUian  is  just  the  man  who 
would  have  opposed  and  fearlessly  condemned  it. 

Johnson's  "  Cyclopedia  "  says  of  him  :  "  One  of 
the    greatest    men    of    the    early    Church."     He 


144     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

"  joined  the  Puritanic  sect  of  the  Montanists.  They 
were  orthodox  in  doctrine,  but  stern  in  spirit  and 
discipline."  "  He  remained  true  to  the  faith  of  the 
Catholics,  but  fought  them  vehemently  on  matters 
of  morality  and  discipline.  He  was  also  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  African  opposition  to  Rome."  The 
"  Schaff-Herzog  Cyclopedia  "  says  of  him  :  "  One  of 
the  grandest  and  most  original  characters  of  the 
ancient  Church."  "  Greek philosojphy  he  despised.'''^ 
Of  his  great  book  they  say :  "  One  of  the  magnifi- 
cent monuments  of  the  ancient  Church."  Authon's 
"  Classical  Dictionary  "  says  of  him  :  "  He  informs 
us  more  correctly  than  any  other  writer  respecting 
the  Christian  doctrines  of  his  time.  .  .  .  Ter- 
tuUian  was  held  in  very  high  esteem  by  the  subse- 
quent Fathers  of  the  Church."  Neander  says : 
"  TertuUian  is  a  writer  of  peculiar  importance."  * 

Here  then  is  a  competent  and  unimpeachable 
witness  to  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  uni- 
versal Church,  A.  D.  200,  or  only  104  years  after 
John. 

TertuUian  says :  "  "We  solemnize  the  day  after 
Saturday  in  contradistinction  to  those  who  call  this 
day  their  Sabbath,  and  devote  it  to  ease  and  eating, 
deviating  from  the  old  Jewish  customs,  which  they 
are  now  very  ignorant  of."  ^  TertuUian  again  de- 
clares that  his  brethren  did  not  observe  the  days 
held  sacred  by  the  Jews ;  "  We  neither  accord  with 
the  Jews  in  their  peculiarities  in  regard  to  food,  nor 

» Rose's  "  Neander,"  p.  424. 

^ Tertullian's  "Apology,"  Chap.  xvi. 


TERTULLIAN  OF  AFRICA  145 

in  their  sacred  days."  "  We,  however  (just  as  we 
have  received),  only  on  the  day  of  the  Lord's  res- 
urrection ought  to  guard  not  only  against  kneeling, 
but  every  posture  and  office  of  solicitude  ;  deferring 
even  our  business,  lest  we  give  any  place  to  the 
devil."  *  Sunday,  then,  was  observed  by  Christians 
at  that  early  date,  but  Saturday  was  not. 

The  above  testimony  of  this  great  Christian 
teacher  is  clear,  positive,  and  decisive.  The  Jewish 
Sabbath  was  not  kept ;  the  Lord's  Day  was.  Ter- 
tullian  was  one  of  the  greatest  Christian  teachers  of 
that  day,  a.  d.  200.  Could  it  be  that  these  influen- 
tial leaders  taught  and  practiced  thus,  while  all  the 
Churches  believed  and  did  just  the  other  way  ? 
That  is,  kept  the  Jewish  Sabbath  and  did  not  keep 
the  Lord's  Day  ?  Might  as  well  say  that  Moody 
and  Spurgeon  taught  Sunday  observance  while  none 
of  their  followers  believed  it. 

In  the  case  of  TertuUian,  the  last  edition  of  the 
"  Advent  History  of  the  Sabbath  "  devotes  twelve 
large  pages  trying  to  discredit  him.  Why  ?  Be- 
cause his  testimony  is  squarely  against  them  and 
they  fear  it.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  Adventists 
do  not  find  even  one  single  Christian  writer  or 
leader  for  hundreds  of  years  after  Christ  who  is 
worthy  of  any  reliance  !  All  are  fools,  forgers,  un- 
reliable, apostates,  semi-pagans,  etc. !  Why  this 
effort  to  impeach  them  all  ?  The  reason  is  easy  to 
find — all  bear  a  decided  witness  against  Sabbata- 
rian teachings. 

1  ** TertuUian  on  Prayer,"  Chap,  xxiii. 


146      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD's   DAY   OBSERVANCE 
ORIGEN,  A.  D.  225 

Origen  (about  a.  d.  225)  was  a  man  of  immense 
learning,  and  his  writings  are  numerous.  "  Origen 
may  well  be  pronounced  one  of  the  ablest  and 
worthiest  of  the  church  Fathers."  * 

The  following  items  about  Origen  are  gathered 
from  the  "  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia."  He  was 
born  at  Alexandria,  A.  D.  185.  Was  carefully 
trained  by  Christian  parents.  His  father  was 
martyred.  He  was  one  of  the  most  learned  men 
of  his  age.  He  was  devoutly  pious.  He  became 
the  teacher  of  the  greatest  men  of  his  time,  even 
teaching  bishops  and  emperors.  He  travelled  ex- 
tensively to  Kome,  Arabia,  Antioch,  Greece,  Tyre, 
Cappadocia,  Jerusalem,  Caesarea,  etc.  Hence  he 
was  familiar  with  all  the  customs  of  Christians 
everywhere.  This  makes  his  testimony  to  the 
Lord's  Day  at  that  early  date  reliable  and  of  great 
importance.  He  says  :  "  If  it  be  objected  to  us  on 
this  subject  that  we  ourselves  are  accustomed  to 
observe  certain  days,  as,  for  example,  the  Lord's 
Day,  the  preparation,  the  passover,  or  pentecost."  ^ 

In  his  commentary  on  Exodus,  Par.  5,  he  says : 
"  It  is  plain  from  Holy  Writ  that  manna  was  first 
given  on  earth  on  the  Lord's  Day.  But  if  it  be 
clear  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  that  God  rained 
manna  from  Heaven  on  the  Lord's  Day,  and  rained 
none  on  the  Sabbath  Day,  let  the  Jews  understand 
that  from  that  time  our  Lord's  Day  was  set  above 

*  McClintock  and  Strong's  *'  Encyclopedia." 

*  ''  Origen  against  Celsus,"  Book  VIII,  Chap.  xxii. 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  CONSTITUTIONS         147 

the  true  Sabbath — for  on  our  Lord's  Day  God  al- 
ways rains  down  manna  from  Heaven ;  for  the  dis- 
courses which  are  delivered  to  us  are  from  HeaveUo" 
Here  Origen  shows  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was 
set  aside,  and  the  Lord's  Day  was  the  superior  day, 
the  day  on  which  Christians  assembled  to  hear  dis- 
courses from  God's  ministers.  This  agrees  with 
Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  and  all  as  above.  Notice 
that  this  witness  is  from  the  East,  not  from  pagan 
Kome.  Origen  was  a  Greek,  not  a  Latin.  As 
Origen  travelled  extensively  among  the  Churches 
and  preached  for  them,  and  his  books  were  read  by 
them,  it  shows  that  the  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Day  was  general  among  them  all.  He  would  not 
have  been  everywhere  invited  to  preach  for  them 
if  they  had  not  believed  as  he  did. ' 

THE  APOSTOLICAL  CONSTITUTIONS,  A.  D.  250 

Of  the  "  Apostolical  Constitutions  "  (a.  d.  250) 
Elder  Andrews,  Adventist,  says:  "The  so-called 
*  Apostolical  Constitutions '  were  not  the  work  of 
the  apostles,  but  they  were  in  existence  as  early  as 
the  third  century,  and  were  then  very  generally 
believed  to  express  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles. 
They  do  therefore  furnish  important  historical  testi- 
mony to  the  practice  of  the  Church  at  that  time. 
Mosheim,  in  his  *  Historical  Commentaries,'  Cent. 
1,  section  51,  speaks  thus  of  these  '  constitutions' : 
'  The  matter  of  this  work  is  unquestionably  ancient ; 
since  the  manners  and  discipline  of  which  it  exhibits 
a  view  are  those  which  prevailed  among  the  Chris- 


148      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

tians  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  especially 
those  resident  in  Greece  and  the  oriental  regions.' "  * 
Notice  again  that  this  work  was  the  product  of  the 
Eastern  Church  and  hence  shows  the  custom  of  the 
Church  in  the  East  instead  of  that  at  Rome. 

These,  then,  will  be  good  witnesses  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  about  A.  D.  250.  In  section  7, 
paragraph  59,  we  read :  "  And  on  the  day  of  our 
Lord's  resurrection,  which  is  the  Lord's  Day,  meet 
more  diligently,  sending  praise  to  God  that  made 
the  universe  by  Jesus  and  sent  Him  to  us."  "  Oth- 
erwise what  apology  will  He  make  to  God  who 
does  not  assemble  on  that  day  to  hear  the  saving 
word  concerning  the  resurrection."  In  Book  YII, 
section  2,  paragraph  30,  he  says  :  "  On  the  day  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  that  is,  the  Lord's 
Day,  assemble  yourselves  together,  without  fail, 
giving  thanks  to  God,"  etc.  In  the  same  para- 
graph, in  speaking  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
the  writer  says :  "  On  which  account  we  solemnly 
assemble  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  the  resurrection 
on  the  Lord's  Day,"  etc. 

These  testimonies  are  decisive,  and  do  show  be- 
yond a  doubt  that  the  Christians  of  those  early 
days  used  the  Lord's  Day  just  as  it  is  used  now  for 
religious  worship. 

CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  OF  CARTHAGE,  A.  D.  253 

Cyprian  was  one  of  the  greatest  scholars  and 
men  of  influence  in  all  Christendom  about  seventy- 
»**  Testimony,"  etc.,  p.  13. 


CYPRIAN,   BISHOP   OP   CARTHAGE  149 

five  years  before  the  date  of  Constantine's  edict  of 
A.  D.  321.  He  was  a  most  devoted  Christian,  had 
great  wealth,  half  of  which  he  gave  to  the  poor. 
Eefusing  to  reverence  the  pagan  idols,  he  was 
martyred.  He  opposed  the  Eoman  Church  and 
bishop.  Of  him  the  "  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  " 
says  :  "  At  the  time  when  the  controversy  concern- 
ing baptism  broke  out  between  him  and  Bishop 
Stephen  of  Eome  (255)  Cyprian  stood  undoubtedly 
as  the  prominent  and  most  influential  leader  in  the 
Christian  Church."  "  The  Papacy  was  not  yet 
born." 

Of  this  great  leader,  the  "Advent  History  of 
the  Sabbath"  (1912)  says:  "The  next  Father 
offering  an  argument  for  Sunday  is  Cyprian" 
(page  370).  Hence  there  is  no  doubt  that  Cy- 
prian kept  the  Lord's  Day  and  defended  it.  He 
said :  "  Because  the  eighth  day,  that  is,  the  first 
day  after  the  Sabbath,  was  to  be  that  on  which 
the  Lord  should  rise  again,  and  should  quicken 
us,  and  give  us  circumcision  of  the  Spirit;  the 
eighth  day,  that  is,  the  first  day  after  the  Sabbath, 
and  the  Lord's  Day,  which  went  before  in  the 
figure." ' 

Did  not  the  Churches  practice  as  this  great  leader 
did  and  taught  ?  Surely.  Then  they  kept  the 
Lord's  Day  sixty  years  before  Constantine's  con- 
version, a  generation  before  his  Sunday  law. 
Notice  that  Cyprian  lived  in  Africa,  not  at  Kome, 
and  that  he  opposed  Kome. 

*  Cyprian's  ''  Epistles,"  No.  58,  Sect.  4. 


150      ORIGIN   OF   THE  LORD's   BAY   OBSERVANCE 
ANATOLIUS,  A.  D.  270,  BISHOP  OF  LAODICEA,  ASIA 

He  was  Bishop  of  Laodicea,  Asia  Minor.  Not  a 
Koman,  but  a  Greek.  This  Church  was  raised  up 
by  Paul  himself,  and  must  have  been  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  apostle's  doctrine.  In  his  sev- 
enth canon  Anatolius  says :  "  The  obligation  of  the 
Lord's  resurrection  binds  us  to  keep  the  paschal 
festival  on  the  Lord's  Day."  In  his  tenth  canon 
he  uses  this  language  :  "  The  solemn  festival  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  Lord  can  be  celebrated  only  on 
the  Lord's  Day."  In  his  sixteenth  canon  he  says  : 
"  Our  regard  for  the  Lord's  resurrection  which  took 
place  on  the  Lord's  Day  will  lead  us  to  celebrate  it 
on  the  same  principle."  See  how  all  these  early 
Christians  call  the  resurrection  day  "the  Lord's 
Day  "  and  how  they  honor  it.  How  entirely  dif- 
ferent from  our  Sabbatarians  who  can  hardly  find 
terms  mean  enough  by  which  to  express  their  con- 
tempt for  Sunday !  Why  is  this  difference  and 
what  does  it  show  ? 

VICTORINUS,  BISHOP  OF  PETAU,  A.  D.  300 

"On  the  former  day  [the  sixth]  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  fast  rigorously  that  on  the  Lord's  Day 
we  may  go  forth  to  our  bread  with  giving  of 
thanks.  And  let  the  parasceve  become  a  rigorous 
fast  lest  we  should  appear  to  observe  any  Sabbath 
with  the  Jews  which  Christ  Himself,  the  Lord  of 
the  Sabbath,  says  by  His  prophets  that  His  soul 
hateth  which  Sabbath  He  in  His  body  abolished."  * 
*  "Creation  of  the  World,"  section  4. 


PETER,  BISHOP  OF  ALEXANDRIA  151 

Here  is  another  Christian  bishop  who  says  most 
distinctly  that  Christians  did  not  keep  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  and  that  the  Lord  had  abolished  it ;  but 
they  did  religiously  regard  the  Lord's  Day.  This 
was  twenty-one  years  before  Constantine's  Sunday 
law  and  sixty-four  years  before  the  Council  of 
Laodicea. 

PETER,  BISHOP  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  A.  D.  306 

"  But  the  Lord's  Day  we  celebrate  as  a  day  of 
joy,  because  on  it  He  rose  again,  on  which  day  we 
have  received  it  for  a  custom  not  even  to  bow  the 
knee"  (Canon  15).  He  gives  the  same  reason  for 
keeping  the  Lord's  Day  that  Christians  give  now. 
This  was  more  than  two  hundred  years  before  the 
Pope  came  into  power.  Notice  that  these  witnesses 
for  Sunday  are  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  from 
Africa,  Asia  and  Europe,  not  simply  from  Rome, 
as  Seventh-Day  Adventists  say.  These  show  that 
Sunday-keeping  was  as  wide-spread  as  the  Christian 
Church  itself,  and  that  from  the  earliest  days. 

EUSEBIUS,  A.  D.  324 

Eusebius  was  born  in  Palestine,  the  very  home 
of  Christ  and  the  apostles  and  the  cradle  of  the 
early  Church.  He  was  Bishop  of  Caesarea  where 
Paul  abode  two  years  (Acts  xxiii.  33 ;  xxiv.  27). 
He  studied  at  Antioch  where  Paul  labored  for 
years  (Acts  xv.  1).  He  travelled  to  Egypt  and 
over  Asia  Minor.    He  was  one  of  the  most  noted 


152      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

men  of  his  age.  He  wrote  the  first  history  of  the 
Christian  Church  and  bears  the  title  of  "  Father  of 
Church  History."  The  "  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclo- 
pedia "  says :  "  As  a  repertory  of  facts  and  docu- 
ments, his  work  is  invaluable."  Johnson's  "  Cyclo- 
pedia "  says :  "  He  was  very  eminent  for  learning, 
as  well  as  talents."  Home's  "  Introduction"  says: 
"  A  man  of  extraordinary  learning,  diligence  and 
judgment,  and  singularly  studious  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. .  .  .  His  chief  work  is  his  '  Ecclesiastical 
History,'  in  which  he  records  the  history  of  Chris- 
tianity from  its  commencement  to  his  own  time. 
...  He  has  delivered,  not  his  own  private 
opinion,  but  the  opinion  of  the  Church,  the  sum  of 
what  he  had  found  in  the  writings  of  the  primitive 
Christians." ' 

He  had  every  possible  opportunity  to  know  what 
Christians  did  throughout  the  world.  Of  him 
Justin  Edwards,  D.  D.,  says :  "  He  lived  in  the 
third  century,  was  a  man  of  vast  reading,  and  was 
as  well  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Church 
from  the  days  of  the  apostles  as  any  man  of  his 
day."  At  Caesarea  was  "  a  very  extensive  library, 
to  which  Eusebius  had  constant  access.  He  was 
a  learned  and  accurate  historian  and  had  the  aid 
of  the  best  helps  for  acquiring  information  upon  all 
subjects  connected  with  the  Christian  Church."^ 
He  lived  right  there,  knew  just  what  Christians 
did,  and  wrote  about  fifty  years  before  the  Council 

» Vol.  I,  Chap,  xi,  Sec.  2,  p.  42. 
« *' Sabbath  Manual,"  pp.  124-125. 


EUSEBIUS  163 

of  Laodicea  where  Adventists  say  the  Sabbath  was 
changed  to  Sunday. 

True,  there  was  a  small  heretical  sect  who  kept 
the  Sabbath  as  Judaizers  do  now.  Of  them  he 
says  :  They  are  "  those  who  cherish  low  and  mean 
opinions  of  Christ.  .  .  .  With  them  the  ob- 
servance of  the  law  was  altogether  necessary  [just 
like  Seventh-Day  Advent"'«ts]  as  if  they  could  not 
be  saved  only  by  faith  in  Christ  and  a  correspond- 
ing life.  .  .  .  They  also  observe  the  Sabbath 
and  other  discipline  of  the  Jews  just  like  them,  but 
on  the  other  hand  they  also  celebrate  the  Lord's 
Days  very  much  like  us  in  commemoration  of  His 
resurrection."  ^  Even  these  Judaizers  kept  Sunday. 
On  the  Ninety -second  Psalm  he  says  :  "  The  word 
by  the  new  covenant  translated  and  transferred  the 
feast  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  morning  light  and  gave 
us  the  true  rest,  viz.,  the  saving  Lord's  Day." 
"  On  this  day  which  is  the  first  of  light  and  of  the 
true  Sun,  we  assemble,  after  an  interval  of  six  days, 
and  celebrate  holy  and  spiritual  Sabbaths,  even  all 
nations  redeemed  hy  him  throughout  the  world,  and 
do  those  things  according  to  the  spiritual  law 
which  were  decreed  for  the  priests  to  do  on  the 
Sabbath."  Again :  "  And  all  things  whatsoever 
that  it  was  the  duty  to  do  on  the  Sabbath,  these 
we  have  transferred  to  the  Lord's  Day  as  more 
honorable  than  the  Jewish  Sabbath."  * 

This  testimony  of  the  great  historian  of  the  early 

\" Ecclesiastical  History,"  pp.  112-113. 
*  Commentary  on  Ps.  xcii. 


164:      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

Church  is  decisive.  It  puts  it  beyond  doubt  that 
Christians  in  general  in  all  the  world  did  then  keep 
Sunday,  the  Lord's  Day,  and  did  not  keep  the 
Jewish  Sabbath. 

Eusebius  bears  witness  to  an  actual  existing  fact, 
not  to  some  speculative  theory.  He  says  that  all 
Christians  throughout  the  world  kept  the  Lord's 
Day.  He  lived  there  and  knew  of  what  he  affirmed. 
Is  not  his  testimony  better  than  that  of  some  sec- 
tarian Adventist  1,500  years  later  ? 

Eusebius  says,  "  We  have  transferred  "  the  duties 
of  the  Sabbath  to  the  Lord's  Day.  On  this  Ad- 
ventists  try  to  make  it  appear  that  Eusebius  himself 
with  Constantine  and  others  at  that  date,  A.  D.  324, 
were  the  ones  who  transferred  the  day.  This  is  an 
unfair  inference  contradicted  by  all  that  has  gone 
before.  Eusebius  writes  this  as  a  Christian  History 
relating  what  the  early  Church  had  done.  To 
illustrate :  Koosevelt  says :  "  We  defeated  the 
British  in  1776."  "  We  took  Texas  from  Mexico." 
Does  he  mean  that  he  and  his  officers  did  this  now  ? 
All  know  better.  Eusebius  writes  in  the  same  way 
of  what  his  brethren  did  centuries  before.  That 
is  all. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE,  A.  D.  325 

This  was  the  first  general  council.  There  were 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops  present  from  all 
Christendom  with  about  fifteen  hundred  lower 
clergy.  Surely  these  would  know  which  day  was 
then  observed.      The  twentieth  canon  says :  "  As 


ATHANASIUS  155 

some  kneel  on  the  Lord's  Days,  and  on  the  days  of 
Pentecost,  the  holy  synod  has  decided  that  for  the 
observance  of  a  general  rule,  all  shall  oifer  their 
prayers  to  God  standing." 

There  was  no  objection  to  this  rule,  no  question 
about  it,  all  agreed  in  it  as  a  thing  universally 
understood.  The  Lord's  Day  was  the  Christian 
day  of  worship.  The  Sabbath  was  not  even  men- 
tioned, showing  that  none  of  them  kept  it. 

As  the  delegates  represented  the  entire  Christian 
Church  and  in  all  nations,  it  proves  that  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Lord's  Day  was  then  kept  the  world  over. 

ATHANASIUS,  A.  D.  326 

In  the  great  council  at  Nice  A.  D.  325,  the  one 
man  who  towered  above  all  others  in  influence  was 
Athanasius,  the  "  Father  of  Orthodoxy."  There  he 
defeated  the  heresy  of  Arianism  and  settled  for 
the  Church  ever  since  the  Deity  of  Christ.  He 
travelled  extensively  among  the  Churches,  knew 
their  customs  well,  and  was  himself  a  leader  among 
them.  It  is  certain  that  his  teaching  and  his  cus- 
tom as  to  the  Lord's  Day  was  that  of  the  entire 
Church.  I  will  quote  from  the  "  Seventh-Day  Ad- 
ventist  History  of  the  Sabbath,"  edition  1912,  so 
that  his  position  will  not  be  questioned.  The 
author  says :  "Of  the  early  Fathers  the  later  ones 
spare  no  effort  to  manufacture  new,  fanciful, 
rhetorical  phrases  to  surround  Sunday  with  greater 
luster,  and  to  cause  the  Sabbath  to  fade  out  of 
sight.    Athanasius  of  Alexandria  (a.  d.  326)  gives 


156      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

US  a  fair  sample.  The  sixth  psahn  is  said  to  be 
upon  the  Sheminith  (the  eighth)  an  instrument  for 
the  eighth  key.  This  is  seized  upon  by  Athanasius  as 
a  proof  for  Sunday.  "  What  else  could  this  octave 
be  but  the  resurrection  of  Christ  ?  "  Then  again 
speaking  of  Psalm  cxviii.  24,  "  What  day  can  this 
be  but  the  resurrection  day  of  the  Lord  ? — which 
has  received  its  name  from  Him,  to  wit,  the  Lord's 
Day "  (pages  418,  419).  Then  the  author  gives 
other  quotations  from  Athanasius  along  the  same 
line  defending  the  Lord's  Day. 

Notice  that  all  the  great  leaders  of  the  Church 
kept  the  Lord's  Day  and  defended  it,  but  rejected 
the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Then  did  not  the  general 
Church  follow  their  leaders  ?  Leaders  deter- 
mine what  their  Churches  believe  and  practice. 
Lutherans  follow  Luther,  Methodists  follow  Wesley, 
etc.  All  the  leaders  of  the  early  Church  condemned 
the  Jewish  Sabbath  and  observed  the  Lord's  Day. 
Did  not  the  Churches  follow  their  teachers  then 
the  same  as  they  do  now  ? 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  confess  that  the  leading 
men,  ministers,  and  writers,  during  the  first  cen- 
turies opposed  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Thus  Elder 
J.  N.  Andrews  in  "  History  of  the  Sabbath,"  edi- 
tion of  1873,  says : 

"  Several  of  the  early  Fathers  wrote  in  opposition 
to  the  seventh  day.  We  now  give  the  reasons  as- 
signed by  each  for  that  opposition. 

"  The  writer  called  Barnabas  did  not  keep  the 
seventh  day  "  (page  299). 


JUSTIN  MAETYB  157 

Andrews  finds  that  Barnabas  gave  seven  reasons 
why  the  Sabbath  should  not  be  kept !  He  wrote 
A.  D.  120,  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. His  book  was  read  in  the  Churches  as  Scrip- 
ture. Then  did  those  Churches  keep  the  Sabbath  ? 
Of  course  not. 

JUSTIN  MART  YE,  A.  D.  140 

Of  this  renowned  early  Christian  Father  Andrews 
says :  "  He  expressly  affirms  the  abolition  of  both 
the  Sabbath  and  the  Law."  "  Here  are  three 
reasons"  (pages  301,  303).  So  Justin  gave  his 
reasons  for  rejecting  the  Sabbath.  Of  him  the 
"  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  "  says  :  "  In  these 
works  Justin  professes  to  present  the  system  of 
doctrine  held  by  all  Christians." 

IREN^US,  A.  D.  178 
Of  him  Andrews  says :  "  These  things  indicate 
that  Irenasus  was  opposed  to  Sabbath  observance  " 
(page  305).  He  was  one  of  the  greatest  and  most 
beloved  of  the  early  Fathers.  Did  he  oppose  the 
Sabbath  and  yet  all  his  people  keep  it  ?    Hardly. 

TERTULLIAN,  A.  D.  200 

Of  him  Andrews  says  :  "  TertuUian  offers  numer- 
ous reasons  for  not  observing  the  Sabbath  "  (page 
305).  He  not  only  did  not  keep  it,  but  gave 
numerous  reasons  for  his  faith.  Of  him  Authon's 
"  Classical  Dictionary  "  says  :  "  He  informs  us  more 
correctly  than    any  other  writer  respecting  the 


158      OEIGIN  OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY  OBSEEVANCE 

Christian  doctrine  of  his  times."  He  had  a 
tremendous  influence  on  the  Church  then.  Did 
they  all  keep  the  Sabbath  while  he  opposed  it  ? 
Keader,  how  is  this  ? 

EUSEBIUS,  A.  D.  324 

ISTo  early  church  Father  surpasses  Eusebius  for 
learning  or  influence  in  the  Church. 

Of  him  Andrews  says  :  "  Eusebius  came  out  and 
declared  that  Christ  transferred  the  Sabbath  to 
Sunday  "  (page  358).  The  same  "  History  of  the 
Sabbath,"  edition  of  1912,  says :  "  Eusebius  sets 
aside  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  "  (page  396).  Then 
that  was  what  all  Christians  did  the  world  over. 

Now  if  the  leaders  and  representative  writers  op- 
posed the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath,  will  any  one  be- 
lieve that  the  common  Christians  all  kept  a  day 
which  all  their  leaders  and  writers  opposed  ?  Elder 
Andrews  in  ''  History  of  the  Sabbath,"  page  308, 
says  :  "  The  reasons  offered  by  the  early  Fathers  for 
neglecting  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  show  con- 
clusively that  they  had  no  special  light  on  the  subject 
by  reason  of  living  in  the  first  centuries,  which  we 
in  this  latter  age  do  not  possess."  This  is  the  con- 
fession from  the  ablest  historian  the  seventh  day 
ever  had  !  He  admits  that  "  the  early  Fathers  " 
"  in  the  first  centuries  "  neglected  "  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath  and  gave  their  reasons  for  it!" 
What  further  need  have  we  for  witness  to  prove 
that  the  seventh  day  was  not  observed  in  the  first 
centuries  ?    But  how  does  this  harmonize  with  the 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  LAODICEA  169 

theory  that  the  Sabbath  was  changed  to  Sunday  by 
the  Pope  several  hundred  years  afterwards  ? 

I  could  multiply  indefinitely  from  Sabbatarian 
authors  such  confessions  as  these.  Against  their 
will,  they  are  compelled  to  make  them.  They 
prove  conclusively  that  the  observance  of  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath  had,  largely  at  least,  dropped  out  of  the 
Church  at  that  early  date. 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  LAODICEA,  A.  D.  364 

This  Christian  council  plainly  states  that  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  was  no  longer  to  be  kept,  while 
the  Lord's  Day  was.  The  twenty-ninth  canon  says  : 
"  Christians  ought  not  to  Judaize,  and  to  rest  in  the 
Sabbath,  but  to  work  in  that  day ;  but  preferring 
the  Lord's  Day,  should  rest,  if  possible,  as  Chris- 
tians. Wherefore  if  they  shall  be  found  to  Judaize, 
let  them  be  accursed  from  Christ." 

Thirty-two  bishops  were  present,  all  Greeks,  in 
the  Eastern  Church.  Did  they  know  which  day 
the  Church  kept  at  that  date?  Surely.  They 
agree  with  all  the  witnesses  already  quoted.  At 
that  date  keeping  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  con- 
demned, and  the  Lord's  Day  approved. 

ST.  AUGUSTINE,  A.  D.  395 

Next  to  Paul,  probably  Augustine  has  had  a 
voider  influence  on  the  Christian  Church  than  any 
other  man.  He  was  born  in  JSTumedia,  Africa, 
A.  D.  353.    His  mother  was  a  devout  Christian. 


160      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

He  became  Bishop  of  Hippo,  Africa.  Of  him  the 
"  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  "  says :  "  From  his 
diocese  a  relentless  war  was  waged  upon  every 
heresy."  "  These  made  him  immortal,  and  have 
tempered  the  theology  of  all  after  times."  "  The 
Protestants  emulate  the  Romanists  in  paying  him 
honor."  "  He  claims  the  reverence  of  the  world." 
By  him  "  the  idea  of  the  Trinity  was  for  the  first 
time  clarified." 

This  great  Christian  leader,  within  three  hundred 
years  of  St.  John,  had  access  to  all  the  Christian 
writings  before  him,  knew  perfectly  the  practice 
of  the  Christians  in  his  day  the  world  over  and 
wrote  against  pagans  and  every  heresy  then  extant. 
He  explicitly  teaches  that  the  Sabbath  was  not  for 
Christians.  Of  Sunday  he  writes  often  and  fully. 
"We  quote  only  a  few  lines.  *'  That  day  which  we 
now  call  Sunday  is  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  is 
clearly  seen  from  the  Gospels.  The  first  day  of 
the  week  is  thus  named  as  the  day  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  Lord,  by  all  the  four  evangelists,  and 
it  is  known  that  this  is  the  day  which  was  later 
called  the  Lord's  Day."  "  Sunday  was  not  ap- 
pointed for  the  Jews,  but  through  the  resurrection 
of  the  Lord  for  Christians."  "  We  celebrate  the 
Lord's  Day,  and  Easter,  and  other  Christian  \oo 
tivities."  "  To  fast  on  the  Lord's  Day  is  a  great 
scandal."  * 

Certainly  this  is  plain  enough.     This  brings  us 
down  to  A.  D.  400,  with  the  Lord's  Day  so  fully 

>  To  Casulamis,  Epistle  28. 


SUMMARY    OF   TESTIMONY  161 

and  clearly  recognized  in  all  Christendom  that  it  is 
useless  to  follow  it  further. 

Now  read  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  Eastern 
Greek  Church,  the  first  one  founded  by  the  apos- 
tles. Eight  Kev.  Bishop  Eaphael,  of  Brooklyn, 
!N".  Y.,  head  of  that  Church  in  America,  writes  me 
under  date  of  March  30,  1914,  as  follows :  "  Our 
Church,  which  included  all  the  very  first  Churches 
founded  by  the  apostles,  such  as  Jerusalem,  An- 
tioch,  Ephesus,  Corinth,  Alexandria,  and  even 
Eome,  for  the  first  three  hundred  years,  has  kept 
the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  day  of  rest  and  in 
holy  remembrance  of  the  resurrection  of  our  blessed 
Lord  from  the  dead.  From  the  dawn  of  Christian- 
ity she  bears  witness  that  it  has  been  the  sacred  day 
on  which  the  faithful  assembled  for  the  partaking 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  the  saying  of  public 
prayers,  and  the  hearing  of  sermons.  All  our  his- 
torians bear  record  to  this  fact." 

This  witness  fully  confirms  the  testimony  of  all 
the  early  Christian  Fathers  quoted  in  this  chapter. 

SUMMARY  OF  TESTIMONY  FROM  CYCLOPEDIAS 

As  a  fair,  impartial  and  clear  statement  of  the 
teachings  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers  concerning 
the  observance  of  Sunday,  we  refer  the  reader  to 
the  following  from  Smith's  "Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,"  Article  "  Lord's  Day."  Here  is  a  book  easy 
of  access  to  all  anywhere,  unsectarian,  embodying 
the  results  of  the  most  thorough  and  scholarly  ex- 
amination of  every  passage  in  all  the  Fathers  hav- 


ing  any  bearing  upon  the  Sunday  question.  Any 
one  who  has  read  the  Fathers  must  confess  that  its 
statements  are  fair  and  truthful.  I  have  only  room 
for  one  short  quotation  : 

"  The  results  of  our  examination  of  the  principal 
writers  of  the  two  centuries  after  the  death  of 
St.  John  are  as  follows :  '  The  Lord's  Day  existed 
during  these  two  centuries  as  a  part  and  parcel  of 
apostolical,  and  so  of  Scriptural  Christianity.  It 
was  never  defended ;  for  it  was  never  impugned, 
or  at  least  only  impugned  as  were  other  things  re- 
ceived from  the  apostles.  .  .  .  Religiously  re- 
garded, it  was  a  day  of  solemn  meeting  for  the  holy 
eucharist,  for  united  prayer,  for  instruction,  for 
almsgiving." 

So  Johnson's  "New  Universal  Cyclopedia," 
Article  "  Sabbath,"  says  :  "  For  a  time  the  Jewish 
converts  observed  both  the  seventh  day,  to  which 
the  name  Sabbath  continued  to  be  given  ex- 
clusively, and  the  first  day,  which  came  to  be 
called  the  Lord's  Day.  .  .  .  Within  a  century 
after  the  death  of  the  last  of  the  apostles  we  find 
the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  under 
the  name  of  the  Lord's  Day,  established  as  a  uni- 
versal custom  of  the  Church." 

No  higher  authority  than  this  could  be  quoted. 
It  states  the  truth  exactly.  So  the  "  Schaff-Herzog 
Encyclopedia,"  Article  "  Sunday,"  says  :  "  In  the 
second  century  its  observance  was  universal.  .  .  . 
The  Jewish  Christians  ceased  to  observe  the  Sab- 
bath after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem." 


SUMMARY  OF  TESTIMONY  163 

Doctor  Schaff,  than  whom  there  is  no  higher  au- 
thority, says  :  "  The  universal  and  uncontradicted 
Sunday  observance  in  the  second  century  can  only  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  it  had  its  roots  in  apos- 
tolic practice." ' 

The  man  who  will  shut  his  eyes  to  all  this  mass 
of  testimony  and  still  insist  that  Sunday-keeping  is 
only  an  institution  of  Popes  of  later  ages,  is  simply 
held  by  a  theory  which  he  is  bound  to  maintain 
anyway.  I  have  had  a  sad  experience  in  this  mat- 
ter, and  know  just  how  a  seventh-day  man  feels  in 
reading  these  historical  facts.  I  read  some  of  them 
then.  They  perplexed  me  some,  but  I  got  over  this 
by  my  strong  faith  in  our  doctrines  and  by  believ- 
ing them  to  be  mostly  forgeries.  Afterwards  as  I 
read  more,  I  saw  these  testimonies  were  reliable  and 
very  decidedly  against  our  theory  of  the  Pope's 
Sunday.  This  disturbed  me  quite  a  little,  but  still 
I  got  over  them  by  simply  ceasing  to  think  of  them 
at  all,  and  by  dwelling  upon  other  arguments  in 
which  I  had  perfect  confidence.  In  debate  I  was 
always  anxious  to  shut  these  out  of  the  discussion. 
I  know  that  Seventh-Day  Adventist  ministers  gen- 
erally feel  as  I  did,  for  we  often  referred  to  these 
testimonies  of  the  Fathers  and  the  effect  they  had  in 
debate.  Of  course,  the  great  body  of  the  members 
never  read  these  things,  and  are  in  blissful  ignorance 
concerning  them.  Or,  if  they  do  read  them,  it  is 
in  their  own  books  where  they  are  all  explained 
away.  Their  unbounded  faith  in  "  the  message  " 
*'  History  of  the  Christian  Church,"  Vol.  I,  p.  478. 


164      OKIGIN   OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

and  in  their  leaders  carries  them  right  over  these 
facts  as  matters  of  no  consequence. 

For  myself,  when  once  I  decided  to  look  these 
historical  facts  squarely  in  the  face  and  give  them 
whatever  force  they  fairly  deserved,  I  soon  saw  the 
utter  falsity  of  the  claim  that  the  "  Pope  changed 
the  Sabbath."  The  old  feeling  of  uneasiness  on 
this  point  is  entirely  gone.  I  feel  that  so  far  as  the 
evidence  of  history  is  concerned,  my  feet  stand  on 
solid  ground. 


vn 

SUNDAY   OBSEEYANCE  OEIGINATED  WITH 

THE  EASTEEN,  OE  GEEEK  CHUECH,  NOT 

WITH  EOME  IN  THE  WEST 

THIS  is  a  very  important  fact  bearing  on 
the  Sunday  question.  Adventists  are  con- 
stantly pointing  to  "  Kome,"  to  the  "  Pope 
of  Eome,"  to  the  "  Koman  Church,"  to  the  "  Ko- 
man  Papacy,"  to  the  "  Eoman  Councils,"  and  to  the 
"  Eoman  pagans  "  as  the  originators  of  Sunday  ob- 
servance. They  publish  "  Eome's  Challenge," 
"Eome's  Catechism,"  etc.  Their  cause  stands  or 
falls  with  these  claims.  It  is  easy  to  show  that  all 
these  assertions  are  groundless.  The  change  of  the 
day  was  made  in  the  Eastern  Greek  Church  in  the 
time  of  the  apostles,  and  was  carried  thence  to 
Eome,  not  from  Eome  to  the  East.  The  proof  of 
this  is  abundant. 

Generally  people  know  little  about  the  Greek 
Church,  hardly  know  that  it  exists.  Yet  it  is  the 
oldest  Church  and  numbers  now  one  hundred  and 
fifty  millions.  Generally  people  suppose  that  Eome 
is  the  "  Mother  Church,"  which  is  not  true.  As 
we  all  know  from  the  book  of  Acts,  the  Christian 
Church  began  in  the  East,  in  Asia,  not  in  Eome. 
It  started  in  Jerusalem  in  the  East ;  thence  spread 

166 


166      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S   DAY   OBSERVANCE 

over  Judea,  Samaria,  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  Egypt, 
Damascus,  and  far-oif  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates. 
Rome  and  the  West  came  later. 

Notice  briefly:  Jesus  and  all  the  apostles  lived 
in  the  East,  where  the  Greek  language  was  spoken. 
Every  book  of  the  New  Testament  except  Matthew 
was  written  in  Greek.  Revelation,  written  as  late 
as  A.  D.  96,  is  in  Greek.  Largely  the  preaching  of 
the  apostles  was  in  Greek.  The  Gospel  began  at 
Jerusalem  in  the  East  (Acts  ii.  1-11).  Notice  who 
heard  that  first  sermon  on  Pentecost :  "  Parthians, 
and  Medes,  and  Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in  Meso- 
potamia, and  JudaBa,  and  Cappadocia,  in  Pontus, 
and  Asia,  Phrygia,  and  Pamphylia,  in  Egypt,  and 
in  the  parts  of  Libya  about  Gyrene  and  stranger^ 
from  Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes,  Cretes  and  Ara- 
bians, we  do  hear  them  speak  in  our  tongues  the 
wonderful  works  of  God." 

Here  were  persons  from  far-off  Parthia,  Media, 
and  Mesopotamia,  away  east  on  the  Euphrates, 
about  two  thousand  miles  east  of  Rome  ;  then  come 
Egypt  and  Libya  ;  then  Arabia ;  then  Asia  Minor  ; 
then  Macedonia  ;  then  Crete— all  these  were  in  the 
East.  Only  one  city  in  the  West  was  named  as  be- 
ing represented  at  Pentecost, — Rome.  These  first 
converts  carried  the  Gospel  into  all  these  far  East- 
ern countries.  The  apostles  soon  followed  and 
raised  up  Churches  there.  See  where  Paul  went — 
Damascus,  Arabia,  Antioch,  Ephesus,  Troas,  Cor- 
inth, Philippi,  Galatia,— all  Grecian  cities.  Reve- 
lation is  written  to  the  seven  Churches  which  are 


SUNDAY  OBSERVANCE  BEGAN  IN  THE  EAST  167 

in  Asia,  none  in  Kome  (Kev.  i.  4).  Peter's  first  let- 
ter seems  to  have  been  from  Babylon  (1  Pet.  v.  13). 

Paul  was  the  first  minister  to  visit  Rome.  This 
was  not  till  a.  d.  65.  (See  Acts  xxviii.)  Even  then 
Paul  found  only  a  few  brethren  at  Rome,  and  these 
were  Jews  (Acts  xxviii.),  but  no  bishop  or  Pope. 
For  three  or  four  hundred  years  after  Christ  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  had  no  authority  even  over  a 
large  share  of  the  Churches  at  home  in  the  West. 
Over  the  great  Eastern  Greek  Churches  he  had 
none  whatever.  On  the  other  hand,  for  about 
three  hundred  years  the  Church  at  Rome  was  a 
Greek  mission,  supported  and  ruled  over  by  the 
Greek  Church,  as  we  will  soon  see. 

Long  before  Paul  visited  Rome  great  Churches 
of  thousands  had,  for  half  a  century,  been  established 
in  the  East,  even  in  far-off  nations  outside  the  Ro- 
man empire. 

Notice  another  fact.  All  the  first  witnesses  for 
the  Lord's  Day  were  not  Romans,  but  Greeks  liv- 
ing in  the  East.  (See  Chapter  YI.)  These  were 
Barnabas,  Justin  Martyr,  Dionysius,  Clement, 
Anatolius,  Origen,  Eusebius,  etc.  Not  a  single  one 
of  the  first  witnesses  for  the  Lord's  Day  was  a 
native  of  Rome.  This  speaks  volumes  as  to  the 
birthplace  of  Sunday  observance.  It  was  born  in 
the  East,  not  in  Rome  in  the  West. 

What  the  Christian  world  owes  to  the  Eastern, 
or  Greek  Church,  is  thus  stated  in  the  "  Schaff- 
Herzog  Encyclopedia,"  Article  "Greek  Church": 
"  This  Church  is  the  oldest  in  Christendom,  and  for 


168      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

several  centuries  she  was  the  chief  bearer  [mission- 
ary] of  our  religion.  She  still  occupies  the  sacred 
territory  of  primitive  Christianity,  and  claims  most 
of  the  apostolic  sees,  as  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  and 
the  Churches  founded  by  Paul  and  John  in  Asia 
Minor  and  Greece.  All  the  apostles,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Peter  and  Paul,  labored  and  died  in  the 
East.  She  produced  the  first  Christian  literature, 
Apologies  of  the  Christian  Faith,  Kefutation  of 
Heretics,  Commentaries  of  the  Bible,  Sermons, 
Homilies,  and  Ascetic  Treatises.  The  great  ma- 
jority of  the  early  Fathers,  like  the  apostles  them- 
selves, used  the  Greek  language.  Polycarp, 
Ignatius,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Eusebius, 
Athanasius,  Basle,  Gregory  of  Nazienzen,  Gregory 
of  Nyssia,  Chrysostom,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  the  first  Christian  emperors  since 
Constantine  the  Great,  together  with  a  host  of 
martyrs  and  confessors,  belong  to  the  Greek  com- 
munion. She  elaborated  the  oecumenical  dogmas  of 
the  Trinity  and  Christology,  and  ruled  the  first 
seven  oecumenical  councils  which  were  all  held  in 
Constantinople  or  its  immediate  neighborhood 
(Nicsea,  Chalcedon,  Ephesus).  Her  palmy  period 
during  the  first  five  centuries  will  ever  claim  the 
grateful  respect  of  the  whole  Christian  world." 

JSTotice  that  the  Eastern,  or  Greek  Church,  ruled 
the  first  seven  general  councils  which  were  all  held 
in  the  East,  none  of  them  in  the  West,  or  papal 
territory.  The  date  of  these  seven  councils  was 
A.  D.  325,  381,  431,  451,  557,  680,  and  78Y.     All 


SUNDAY  OBSERVANCE  BEGAN  IN  THE  EAST    169 

these  were  dominated  by  the  Eastern  Greek 
Church,  not  one  by  Kome.  These  take  us  down 
this  side  the  latest  date  Adventists  fix  for  the 
change  of  the  Sabbath. 

Hence,  if  the  Eoman  Church,  or  Pope,  or  Papacy 
changed  the  Sabbath,  it  could  only  have  changed 
it  in  the  West,  for  it  had  no  authority  or  influence 
over  these  hundreds  of  great  Greek  Churches  in 
the  East,  many  of  them  outside  of  Eoman  rule. 

The  following  is  from  the  Eight  Eev.  Bishop 
Eaphael,  head  of  the  Greek  Church  in  America. 
Few  Protestants  are  aware  of  the  importance  and 
number  of  that  great  primitive  Church.     Eead  it : 

"  The  official  name  of  our  Church  is  *  The  Holy 
Orthodox-Catholic  Apostolic  Church.'  It  was 
founded  in  the  time  of  the  apostles  and  by  the 
twelve  apostles,  Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the 
Chief  Corner  Stone,  beginning  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost  (Acts  ii.).  Our  Church  has  never  been 
subject  to  the  Eoman  Church  or  to  the  Latin 
Popes  or  to  the  Papacy.  The  Eoman  Church  her- 
self was  a  Greek  mission  for  nearly  three  hundred 
years,  and  the  Greek  language  was  the  tongue  in 
which  the  Liturgy,  or  Mass,  was  said  in  the  City  of 
Eome. 

"  The  first  seven  General  Councils,  beginning 
with  Nice  A.  d.  325,  on  down  to  787,  which  were  the 
only  General  Councils  acknowledged  alike  by  East- 
ern and  Western  Christendom,  were  all  held  within 
the  domain  of  the  four  ancient  Eastern  Patriarch- 
ates.   They  were  dominated  by  the  Holy  Orthodox- 


170      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD's  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

Catholic  Apostolic  Church.  Even  the  Popes  of 
Rome,  as  in  the  case  of  Pope  Leo  in  the  matter  of 
the  exaltation  of  the  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople 
to  an  equality  in  temporal  and  spiritual  powers,  to 
Rome  (vide  Acts  of  the  Fourth  General  Council — 
Chalcedon),  were  compelled  to  assent,  like  all  others, 
to  the  Decrees  of  the  General  Councils,  which  latter 
were  always  higher  than  Popes  or  Patriarchs. 

"  Rome  never  dominated  any  of  the  first  seven 
General  Councils;  on  the  contrary,  they  dictated 
to  her  and  in  some  cases,  e.  g.,  Pope  Honorius,  eX' 
communicated  and  condemned  Popes  as  heretics. 

"  The  name  '  Catholic '  was  common  to  all  Ortho- 
dox Churches,  Eastern  or  Western,  Greek  or  Roman, 
for  eight  hundred  years  after  Christ.  Rome,  in  the 
West,  exclusively  assumed  the  name  *  Catholic,'  yet 
prefixing  it  by  the  appellation  '  Roman,'  by  default 
on  the  part  of  the  schismatics  within  her  own  pa- 
triarchate, in  the  sixteenth  century ;  but  the  Holy 
Orthodox-Catholic  Apostolic  Church  of  the  East  has 
never  from  the  first  been  known  by  any  other  name 
than  '  Catholic,'  nor  has  she  set  aside  the  title  in 
any  ofiicial  document.  It  is  her  inalienable  prop- 
erty as  the  Mother  Church  of  Christendom  (vide 
Nicene  Creed,  Article  9),  which,  without  a  single 
omission,  has  been  from  the  first  proclamation  read 
in  our  churches.  Rome  and  all  Western  Christian 
Churches  have  never  denied  to  her  the  title  of  the 
*  Mother  Church  '  nor  '  Catholic'  Her  Apostolicity 
and  Catholicity  have  been  and  are  acknowledged 
in  all  lands  and  in  all  ages. 


SUNDAY  OBSERVANCE  BEGAN  IN  THE  EAST    171 

"  Our  Church,  which  includes  all  the  very  first 
Churches  founded  by  the  apostles,  such  as  Jeru- 
salem, Antioch,  Ephesus,  Corinth,  Alexandria,  and 
even  Kome,  for  the  first  three  hundred  years,  has 
kept  the  '  first  day  of  the  week  '  as  a  day  of  rest 
and  in  holy  remembrance  of  the  Resurrection  of 
our  Blessed  Lord  from  the  dead.  From  the  dawn 
of  Christianity  she  bears  witness  that  it  has  been 
the  Sacred  Day  on  which  the  faithful  assembled 
for  the  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  the  say- 
ing of  public  prayer,  and  the  hearing  of  sermons. 
Our  Holy  Traditions,  the  Sub-Apostolic,  Anti- 
Nicene  and  Sub-Nicene  Fathers,  as  well  as  all  of 
our  historians,  also  bear  testimony  to  this  fact. 
Under  the  head  of  the  Fourth  Commandment  in 
our  Catechism,  which  is  accepted  by  the  whole 
Holy  Orthodox  Catholic  Apostolic  Church,  this 
instruction  is  given.  And  both  the  Roman  Church 
and  all  other  Churches  which  regard  the  authority 
of  antiquity,  calling  themselves  Protestant,  agree 
on  this  very  fact,  viz.,  that  the  Lord's  Day  (the 
first  day  of  the  week)  has  been  observed  from  the 
morning  of  the  Resurrection  till  this  moment. 

"  The  Holy  Orthodox-Catholic  Apostolic  Church 
consists  to-day  of  not  only  the  four  ancient  Patriarch- 
ates of  Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 
Jerusalem,  but  of  the  great  Churches  of  Russia, 
Greece,  Servia,  Bulgaria,  Roumania,  Montenegro, 
Albania,  Cyprus,  Mount  Sinai,  and  the  four  inde- 
pendent Churches  of  Austria,  etc.,  and  here  in 
America,  under  the  Holy  Synod  of  Russia,  a  pros- 


1Y2      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

perous  Mission,  consisting  of  different  national 
Churches,  which  extends  from  the  northern  limits 
of  Canada  to  the  City  of  Mexico.  All  these 
Churches  are  equal  in  authority  and  united  in 
Doctrine,  Discipline  and  Worship.  She  is  the  same 
Church  without  break,  in  her  succession  of  bishops, 
traditions  and  teaching,  from  the  days  of  the  twelve 
apostles,  when  they  met  in  the  Upper  Boom  at  Jeru- 
salem before  there  was  ever  heard  of  or  thought  of 
a  Pope  in  Eome,  and  when  St.  James,  spoken  of  as 
the  first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  presided  over  the 
council  of  the  Apostles  and  Brethren,  when  they 
considered  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  into  the 
Christian  Faith. 

"  The  Holy  Orthodox-Catholic  Apostolic  Church 
has  never  perceptibly  changed  in  Doctrine,  Disci- 
pline or  Worship  since  Apostolic  Days,  and  num- 
bers to-day  about  150,000,000  members. 
"  Eaphael  Ha wa weeny. 
Bishop  of  BrooJclyUj  and  Head  of  the  Syrian  Holy 
Orthodox- Catholic  Apostolic  Mission  in  America, 
^^  March  SO,  IQU^^ 

Their  catechism  is  very  plain  on  this  point.  The 
Longer  Catechism  of  the  Greek  Church  says : 

"  Is  the  Sabbath  kept  in  the  Eastern  Church  ? 

*•  It  is  not  kept  strictly  speaking. 

"  How  does  the  Christian  Church  obey  the  fourth 
commandment  ? 

"  She  still  every  six  days  keeps  the  seventh,  only 
not  the  last  day  of  the  seven  days,  which  is  the 


SUNDAY  OBSEEVANCE  BEGAN  IN  THE  EAST    173 

Sabbath,  but  the  first  day  in  every  week,  which  is 
the  day  of  the  Kesurrection,  or  Lord's  Day. 

"  Since  when  do  we  keep  the  day  of  the  Kesur- 
rection ? 

"  From  the  very  time  of  Christ's  Eesurrection." 

The  catechisms  of  a  Church  are  the  very  best 
authority  as  to  what  that  Church  believes.  Here 
are  the  Churches  raised  up  by  the  apostles  them- 
selves and  have  continued  this  ever  since.  They 
have  always  kept  Sunday.  Here  is  a  clear  and 
emphatic  testimony  from  the  highest  authority  in 
that  great  Eastern  Church.  All  her  historians, 
bishops,  councils,  catechisms,  and  traditions  agree  in 
witnessing  to  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day 
from  the  very  beginning  of  the  Church.  This  is 
not  a  mere  theory^  but  an  actual  historical  fact  wit- 
nessed to  to-day  by  one  hundred  and  fifty  million 
members.     And  all  outside  history  confirms  this. 

All  the  first  writers  to  defend  the  faith  against 
both  pagans  and  heretics  were  members  of  this 
early  Eastern  Church.  None  were  Eomans.  The 
fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity  now  held  in 
common  by  the  Greek,  the  Koman,  and  Protestant 
Churches  were  first  formulated  and  settled  by  the 
Eastern  Church,  not  by  the  Koman  Church.  Her 
great  scholars  and  teachers,  her  Christian  literature, 
her  preachers,  and  world-wide  influence,  far  ex- 
ceeded that  of  Kome  and  the  West  for  over  six 
hundred  years. 

Kev.  A.  H.  Lewis,  Seventh-Day  Baptist,  admits 
that  the  Greek  Church  was  the  Mother  Church. 


174     OEIGIN  OF  THE  LOBD'S  DAY  OBSEEVANCB 

He  says:  "In  the  changes  of  the  first  four  cen- 
turies after  Christ,  the  Eastern  Church,  which  was 
really  the  Mother  Church,  and  the  home  of  primi- 
tive Christianity,  was  kept  unaffected  by  way  of  in- 
fluence which  started  the  strong  current  of  empire 
westward  by  way  of  Kome. — But  the  truth  is  that 
a  very  large  factor  of  church  history  is  the  Eastern 
current,  and  especially  so  in  regard  to  the  earliest 
ideas  and  practices,  that  of  the  Apostolic  Period."  ' 

This  is  true,  and  is  an  important  concession  from 
a  Sabbatarian  confirming  the  above  from  Bishop 
Kaphael.  Justin  Martyr  states  in  explicit  language 
that  as  early  at  least  as  A.  D.  140  that  Mother 
Church  was  keeping  Sunday.  (See  previous  chap- 
ter.) How  then  could  Kome,  two  hundred  years 
later,  introduce  Sunday  to  this  old  Church  ?  How 
could  Sunday  originate  with  the  pagan  Romans  in 
the  time  of  Constantine,  A.  D.  321  ? 

It  was  her  apostles  and  consecrated  missionaries 
who  carried  the  Gospel  to  Rome  and  the  West  and 
Christianized  them.  It  was  not  Rome  and  the 
West  that  taught  the  East.  It  was  exactly  the 
other  way.  Specially  was  this  true  of  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Lord's  Day.  It  was  carried  from  the 
East  to  the  West,  from  the  Greeks  to  the  Romans. 
It  was  not  pagan  Romans,  as  Adventists  say,  who 
introduced  the  keeping  of  the  Lord's  Day  to  the 
great  Eastern  Church,  but  it  was  the  Eastern 
Church  that  carried  that  day  West  and  taught  the 
converted  pagans  to  observe  it. 

»  "Sabbath  and  Sunday,"  pp.  220,  221. 


SUNDAY  OBSERVANCE  BEGAN  IN  THE  EAST    1Y5 

The  following  is  from  "  The  Historians  of  the 
History  of  the  World,"  Article  "Papacy,"  Yol. 
VIII,  p.  520  :  "  But  the  history  of  Latin  Christianity 
was  not  begun  for  some  considerable  (it  cannot  but 
be  indefinable)  part  of  the  first  three  centuries. 
The  Church  of  Kome,  and  most,  if  not  all,  the 
Churches  of  the  West,  were,  if  we  may  so  speak, 
Greek  religious  colonies.  Their  language  was 
Greek,  their  organization  Greek,  their  Scriptures 
Greek,  and  many  vestiges  and  traditions  show  that 
their  ritual,  their  liturgy,  was  Greek.  Through 
Greek  the  connection  of  the  Churches  of  Rome  and 
the  West  was  constantly  kept  up  with  the  East." 
The  "  Britannica,"  Article  "  Papacy,"  says  that  the 
Church  at  Rome  was  not  founded  till  A.  d.  41-54. 
Then  it  says  of  the  fourth  century  :  "  The  Roman 
Church,  having  ceased  to  know  the  Greek  language, 
found  itself  practically  excluded  from  the  world  of 
Greek  Christianity."  "  During  the  fourth  century 
it  is  to  be  noticed  that,  generally  speaking,  the 
Roman  Church  played  a  comparatively  insignificant 
part  in  the  West." 

These  historical  facts  show  that  Rome  for  cen- 
turies was  taught  and  ruled  by  the  Eastern  Greek 
Church,  not  the  East  by  Rome. 

The  following  is  from  the  noted  scholar,  the  late 
Dean  Stanley,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History, 
Oxford,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Eastern  Church." 
It  is  of  the  highest  authority.  He  says :  "  By 
whatever  name  we  call  it — '  Eastern,'  *  Greek,'  or 
*  Orthodox ' — it  carries  us  back,  more  than  any  other 


176      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

existing  institution,  to  the  earliest  scenes  and  times 
of  the  Christian  religion."  ^  "  Jerusalem,  Antioch, 
Alexandria,  are  centers  of  local  interest  which  none 
can  see  or  study  without  emotion,  and  the  Churches 
which  have  sprung  up  in  those  regions  retain  the 
ancient  customs  of  the  East,  and  of  the  primitive 
age  of  Christianity,  long  after  they  have  died  out 
everywhere  else  "  (page  57). 

Again  Stanley  says  :  "  We  know,  and  it  is  enough 
to  know,  that  the  Gospel,  the  original  Gospel, 
which  came  from  the  East,  now  rules  in  the  West  " 
(page  95).  The  Church  in  far-off  Eastern  Asia, 
Chaldea,  the  home  of  Abraham,  "  was  the  earliest 
of  all  Christian  missions — the  mission  of  Thaddeus 
to  Agbarus"  (page  58).  A  delegate  from  that 
Church  came  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  A.  d.  325. 
"  The  early  Eoman  Church  was  but  a  colony  of 
Greek  Christians  or  Grecized  Jews.  The  earliest 
Fathers  in  the  Western  Church,  Clement,  IrenaBus, 
Hermas,  Hippolytus,  wrote  in  Greek.  The  early 
Popes  were  not  Italians,  hut  Greeks  "  (page  65). 

Consider  carefully  these  facts.  It  was  the  East- 
ern Greek  Church  which  sent  missionaries  to  Kome, 
founded  that  Church,  furnished  it  her  teachers  and 
supported  it  as  a  mission  for  centuries.  For  over 
two  hundred  years  the  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Day  was  fully  and  universally  established  among 
all  the  thousands  of  the  old  Eastern  Churches  before 
the  Church  at  Eome  in  the  West  ceased  to  be 
taught  and  supported  as  a  Greek  mission.    Bead 

^  Lecture  7,  p.  56. 


SUNDAY   OBSERVANCE  BEGAN  IN  THE  EAST    177 

the  previous  chapter.     This  shows  that  Sunday- 
keeping  went  from  the  East  to  the  West,  not  from 
Eome  to  the  East.     Barnabas,  Justin  Martyr,  and 
others  show   that   the   Greek   Churches  were  all 
observing  the  resurrection  day  in  the  first  part  of 
the  second  century  when  they  were  yet  sending 
teachers  and  pastors  to  Eome.     Would  not  these 
carry  their  home  custom  there  and  teach  it  to  the 
Roman  Church  ?    Certainly,  and  that  is  the  reason 
why  the  West  and  the  East  were  always  agreed 
about  keeping  the  same  day,  the  Lord's  Day.     Did 
that  "  mission  "  force  on  all  the  old,  long  established, 
powerful    Eastern    Churches    a  Western    Roman 
pagan  day  of  worship,  and  that  without  a  word  of 
protest  from  these  Apostolic  Churches?     Candid 
men  will  not  accept  such  an  unreasonable  assertion. 
Again  I  quote  from  Dean  Stanley.     "  She  [the 
Eastern   Church]   is   the   mother,   and  Rome   the 
daughter "  (page  66).     "  All  the  first  founders  of 
theology  were  Easterners.     Till  the  time  of  Angus-      \ 
tine  (355-430)  no  divine  had  arisen  in  the  West ;  till 
the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great  (596-604)  none  had 
filled  the  papal  chair.     The  doctrine  of  Athanasius 
[the    Trinity]   was    received,   not    originated,   by 
Rome  "  (pages  71,  72).    This  indicates  how  depend- 
ent Rome  was  for  centuries  on  the  East  and  how  far 
behind  the  East  Rome  was  in  learning  and  influence. 
Again :  "  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  civiliza- 
tion of  the  Eastern  Church  was  far  higher  than  that 
of  the  Western  "  (page  76).     "  The  whole  force  and 
learning  of  early  Christianity  was  in  the  East.    A 


178     OBIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

general  council  in  the  West  would  have  been  an 
absurdity.  With  the  exception  of  the  few  writers 
of  North  Africa,  there  were  no  Latin  defenders  of 
the  faith "  (page  100).  For  over  four  hundred 
years  the  East  was  the  mother,  the  missionary,  the 
teacher,  the  leader,  the  ruler,  while  the  West  was 
the  child,  the  mission,  the  taught,  the  led,  the  one 
to  receive,  not  give.  With  the  rest  of  the  Gospel 
the  East  brought  the  Lord's  Day  to  Rome  and 
taught  it  to  the  less  educated  Eoman. 

Here  is  a  notable  fact :  While  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, and  perhaps  a  few  Gentiles  living  among 
them,  continued  for  a  while  to  keep  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  all  Christians,  Jews  or  Gentiles,  without  a 
single  exception,  kept  the  Lord's  Day.  Not  one 
single  Church  in  all  the  early  history  of  the  Church 
has  ever  been  found  which  did  not  hold  their  as- 
semblies on  Sunday.  Let  Adventists  name  one  if 
they  can.  They  never  have,  and  never  can.  An- 
other notable  fact  is :  While  there  was  some  dispute 
with  a  few  about  the  Sabbath,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  hint  of  any  dispute  among  the  widely 
scattered  and  differing  sects  of  Christians  about  the 
Lord's  Day.  Only  one  reason  can  be  given  for 
this  ;  namely,  the  custom  of  keeping  the  resurrec- 
tion day  must  have  begun  at  the  very  first  with  the 
apostles  and  was  universally  accepted  by  all  from 
the  beginning. 

Starting  out  from  Jerusalem  after  Pentecost,  the 
apostles  and  teachers  went  everywhere  carrying 
the  practice  of  the  Mother  Church  to  all  nations. 


SUNDAY   OBSERVANCE  BEGAN  IN  THE  EAST    1Y9 

"  The  Lord's  Day,"  Kev.  i.  10,  was  thus  accepted 
by  all,  Rome  with  the  rest. 

Here  is  another  great  fact.  Ignatius,  Justin 
Martyr,  Tertullian,  and  others  wrote  extensively 
against  all  heresies,  but  not  one  ever  mentioned 
Sunday  observance  as  a  heresy,  though  it  was  often 
mentioned  incidentally  as  a  well-known  existing 
Christian  practice. 

The  "  Advent  History  of  the  Sabbath,"  edition 
of  1912,  makes  this  confession:  "  Although  Irenseus 
writes  five  books  against  the  heresies,  it  is  rather  ( 
strange  that  he  himself  nowhere  alludes  to  Sunday  " 
(page  334).  If  the  Lord's  Day  had  been  a  heresy 
lately  introduced  from  the  pagan  Romans,  he  cer- 
tainly would  have  named  it.  His  silence  is  proof 
that  Sunday  was  not  a  heretical,  pagan  institution, 
for  he  wrote  against  all  that.    Weigh  this  fact  well. 

SUMMARY 

1.  The  Eastern  Greek  Church  was  first,  the 
Roman  Church  second  and  later. 

2.  The  Eastern  Church  was  the  mother,  the 
Roman  Church  the  daughter. 

3.  Christianity  went  from  East  to  West,  not 
from  West  to  East. 

4.  The  Greek  Church  was  for  three  hundred 
years  the  Missionary  Church,  while  Rome  was  only 
the  Mission  Church. 

6.  The  Greek  Church  for  centuries  sent  teachers 
to  teach  Rome,  while  Rome  never  sent  teachers  to 
teach  the  Greek  Church. 


180      OKIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S   DAY   OBSEEVANCE 

6.  For  three  hundred  years  all  the  great  schol- 
ars, writers,  preachers,  leaders,  and  defenders  of 
the  Christian  faith  were  Eastern  Greeks,  none 
Western  Komans. 

7.  For  six  hundred  years  the  learning  and 
scholarship  of  the  Christian  Church  was  in  the 
East,  not  in  the  West. 

8.  For  three  hundred  years  the  Greek  Church 
furnished  the  liturgy  for  the  Koman  Church. 

9.  The  early  Bishops  of  Kome  were  Greeks,  not 
Romans. 

10.  For  over  five  hundred  years  the  Eastern 
Greek  Church  far  outnumbered  the  Western,  or 
Eoman,  Church. 

11.  For  the  first  eight  hundred  years  all  the 
general  councils  were  held  in  the  East,  in  Greek 
territory,  were  ruled  by  the  Greeks.  None  by 
Rome.  Rome  had  to  accept  these  decrees  though 
these  councils  never  recognized  the  supremacy  of 
the  Papacy,  but  condemned  one  of  the  Popes. 

12.  The  Eastern  Church  has  from  first  to  last 
always  opposed  and  denounced  the  Papacy  of  Rome. 

13.  No  Papacy  or  papal  rule  has  ever  had  any 
place  in  the  Eastern  Church. 

14.  The  Eastern  Greek  Church  has  never  ac- 
cepted a  single  dogma,  doctrine,  or  practice  from 
the  Roman  Church — not  one.     Note  this  fact. 

15.  The  Eastern  Church  at  the  Council  of  Nice, 
A.  D.  325,  formulated  the  creed  of  Christendom 
which  Rome  accepted  at  her  hands. 

16.  Rome  never  claims  to  have  taught  Sunday- 


SUNDAY   OBSERVANCE   BEGAN   IN  THE   EAST    181 

keeping  to  the  Eastern  Church,  though  she  always 
claims  everything  possible. 

17.  All  the  thousands  of  Eastern  Churches, 
composed  of  millions  of  Christians,  scattered 
through  all  nations  as  far  East  as  India,  had  been 
for  centuries  settled  and  established  in  their  re- 
ligious customs  before  the  date  when  Adventists 
say  Eome  introduced  Sunday  observance  from  the 
pagan  Komans  into  the  Eoman  Church. 

18.  In  all  church  history  there  is  not  the  re- 
motest reference  to  any  dispute  between  the  Koman 
Church  and  the  Greek  Church  about  keeping  Sun- 
day. 

19.  The  histories,  the  catechisms,  the  teaching 
of  her  bishops,  and  her  traditions,  all  agree  in 
teaching  in  the  most  positive  terms  that  the  East- 
ern Greek  Church  has  always  kept  the  Lord's  Day 
from  the  days  of  the  apostles. 

20.  The  Eastern  Church  strongly  asserts  that 
she  has  kept  the  Lord's  Day  from  the  very  begin- 
ning. 

21.  Her  catechisms,  her  historians,  and  her  tra- 
ditions all  confirm  this. 

22.  There  is  no  record  of  any  period  in  all  her 
history  when  she  did  not  observe  the  Lord's  Day. 
Adventist,  find  it  if  you  can. 

23.  There  is  no  record  showing,  or  intimating, 
that  she  ever  received  Sunday  from  Eome  or  the 
West. 

24.  There  is  no  record  of  any  period  this  side  of 
the  apostles  when  she  began  keeping  the  Lord's  Day. 


182      OKIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

25.  Justin  Martyr,  a  Greek  Christian,  a  Church 
Father  of  the  Eastern  Church,  two  hundred  years 
before  the  date  of  Constantine's  Sunday  law,  gives 
a  full  detailed  account  of  the  observance  of  Sunday 
by  his  brother  Christians  of  the  Eastern  Church. 

26.  Eusebius,  the  first  church  historian,  an  East- 
ern Greek  bishop  of  Palestine,  before  Constantine's 
law  was  issued,  says,  "  We  have  transferred  to  the 
Lord's  Day  all  the  duties  of  the  Sabbath "  (page 
153  of  this  work). 

27.  The  Greek  Church,  which  gave  us  the 
Lord's  Day,  also  gave  us  our  New  Testament 
Scriptures  long  before  Kome  had  any  Scriptures  in 
her  own  tongue. 

28.  It  was  the  Greek  Church  which,  through 
her  early  scholars  and  councils,  gave  to  all  Chris- 
tendom, Kome  included,  our  canon  of  inspired  New 
Testament  books. 

29.  The  Eastern  Church  has  always  jealously 
held  to  her  own  custom  against  all  efforts  of  Eome 
to  change  them. 

30.  The  Eoman  Catholic  Church  always  teaches 
that  the  "  Holy  Catholic  Church "  changed  the 
Sabbath  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  (See  Chapter 
TV.)  But  there  was  no  Eoman  Pope  or  Papacy  in 
existence  at  that  time.  Even  Adventists  will  ad- 
mit  this.  So  Eome  bears  witness  that  the  day  was 
changed  in  the  East,  not  at  Eome.  Mark  well  thU 
fact. 

31.  With  all  these  notorious  facts  before  us,  it 
is  absurd  to  say  that  Eome  changed  the  Sabbath, 


SUNDAY   OBSERVANCE  BEGAN   IN  THE  EAST    183 

originated  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day,  and 
handed  it  over  to  the  old  Eastern  Church  and  then 
to  all  Christendom.  Such  a  theory  is  an  utter  per- 
version of  all  the  plainest  facts  of  the  history  and 
traditions  of  the  Christian  Church. 

In  the  matter  of  the  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Day,  we  are  not  dealing  with  a  mere  theory  as  in 
the  question  of  election,  foreordination,  falling  from 
grace,  condition  of  the  dead,  etc.,  but  with  an 
actual  condition,  with  historical  facts. 

To-day  there  are  said  to  be  two  hundred  and 
fifty  million  Koman  Catholics,  one  hundred  and 
fifty  million  Greek  Catholics,  one  hundred  and 
fifty  million  Protestants,  all  agreeing  in  reverenc- 
ing the  Lord's  Day,  all  agreeing  that  it  originated 
with  the  apostles.  In  proof  of  this  all  appeal  to 
their  present  practice,  to  their  entire  church  history 
in  the  past,  to  all  their  traditions  of  their  Churches, 
and  to  their  catechisms.  If  all  this  is  to  be  ignored 
as  of  no  weight,  then  all  the  experience  and  history 
of  all  the  world  is  worthless. 

FIVE    MONUMENTAL  WITNESSES     OP   ALL   CHRIS- 
TENDOM 

To-day  we  have  with  us,  the  world  over,  ^ve 
monumental  witnesses  to  the  life  of  Christ,  all  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament. 

1.  The  Church.  "I  will  build  My  Church" 
(Matt.  xvi.  18). 

2.  The  New  Testament  Scriptures.  "What 
thou  seest  write  in  a  book  "  (Eev.  i.  11). 


184      OEIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

3.  Baptism.  "Go  baptizing  them"  (Matt, 
xxviii.  19). 

4.  The  Lord's  Supper.  "  Eat  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per "  (1  Cor.  xi.  19). 

5.  The  Lord's  Day.  "  I  was  in  the  spirit  on  the 
Lord's  Day  "  (Rev.  i.  10). 

To-day  all  Christendom  has  all  five  of  these  in 
some  form ;  all  have  come  down  hand-in-hand  to- 
gether, and  one  is  as  old  as  the  other,  and  each  has 
always  been  held  as  sacred  as  the  other,  and  all 
have  been  equally  blessed  of  God. 

The  Lord's  Day  is  older  than  some  of  the  New 
Testament  books,  its  early  beginning  is  better  and 
more  clearly  attested  than  most  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment books,  especially  Hebrews  and  Revelation. 

THE  EASTER   CONTROVERSY 

This  question  furnishes  strong  proof  that  the 
Lord's  Day  originated  with  the  beginning  of  the 
Church  itself,  and  was  universally  observed  by  all 
Christians  from  the  very  first.  Of  this  controversy 
Dean  Stanley  says :  "  It  was  the  most  ancient  con- 
troversy in  the  Church."  '  It  began  immediately 
after  the  death  of  the  apostles.  The  "  Schaff-Herzog 
Encyclopedia,"  Article  "  Easter,"  says :  "  In  the 
early  Church  there  was  no  uniformity  in  the  day 
observed."  Some  Churches  celebrated  it  on  the 
fourteenth  day  of  the  Jewish  month  Nisan,  the  day 
of  the  Passover,  no  matter  what  day  of  the  week 
it  came  on.    The  Churches  of  Syria,  Mesopotamia, 

*  *•  History  of  the  Eastern  Church,"  p.  173. 


SUNDAY  OBSERVANCE  BEGAN  IN  THE  EAST    185 

Cilicia,  and  Asia  Minor  followed  this  date.  Others 
celebrated  it  on  the  day  of  the  Eesurrection,  no 
matter  what  day  of  the  month  it  came  on.  The 
Eastern  Churches  of  Egypt,  Greece,  Palestine,  Pon- 
tus,  and  the  Church  of  Eome  followed  this  custom. 
This  shows  that  the  apostles  felt  that  it  was  a  mat- 
ter of  indifference  and  had  left  no  definite  instruc- 
tion about  it. 

The  above  named  Encyclopedia  says :  "  In  the 
second  century  this  difference  was  the  occasion  of  a 
protracted  controversy  which  agitated  all  Christen- 
dom." In  A.  D.  154  Polycarp  visited  Eome  and 
tried  to  reach  an  agreement  but  failed.  In  197, 
Victor,  Bishop  of  Eome,  threatened  to  excommuni- 
cate those  who  held  to  Nisan  15th,  but  no  one 
obeyed  him.  Even  the  Churches  in  the  West  paid 
no  regard  to  his  order,  while  the  Eastern  Churches 
condemned  and  defied  him.  This  shows  how  little 
influence  the  Bishop  of  Eome  had  at  that  date. 

This  controversy  continued  to  divide  and  agitate 
the  Church  till  it  was  settled  by  the  Council  of 
Nice  A. D.  325.  The  council  says:  "It  has  been 
determined  by  common  consent,"  indicating  that  it 
was  not  a  matter  of  vital  importance  either  way. 
Eemember  that  this  question  was  settled  by  the 
Eastern  Church,  not  by  Eome,  for  this  council  was 
entirely  dominated  by  the  East. 

Now  notice :  This  simple  question  as  to  whether 
Easter  was  to  be  celebrated  on  a  certain  day  of  the 
month,  or  on  a  certain  day  of  the  week,  divided  all 
Christendom  in  a  hot  debate  for  nearly  three  hun- 


186      ORIGIN  OP  THE  LOED's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

dred  years,  yet  it  pertained  to  only  one  day  in  the 
whole  year !  Nor  did  it  pertain  to  more  than  a 
few  hours'  service  even  in  that  one  day. 

Now  compare  this  with  the  question  of  the  Lord's 
Day.  This  came  every  week  during  the  entire 
year,  fifty -two  days,  and  it  embraced  the  whole  day, 
twenty-four  hours  every  week,  yet  during  all  these 
three  hundred  years  of  the  early  Church  there  was 
not  one  word  of  division  over  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  Day.  The  question  never  came  up  for  dis- 
cussion as  to  any  difference  between  any  parts  of 
the  Church,  East  or  West,  North  or  South,  Greece 
or  Rome.  During  the  entire  Easter  controversy 
the  Lord's  Day  was  often  mentioned,  but  only  in- 
cidentally as  an  institution  well  known  to  all  and 
equally  regarded  by  all,  East  or  West.  This  uni- 
formity could  not  have  been  obtained  unless  all  the 
apostles  had  agreed  in  it  and  had  established  it  at  the 
very  beginning  of  the  Church  so  that  there  was  no 
question  about  it  later.  Opponents  of  the  Lord's  Day 
have  never  been  able  to  satisfactorily  answer  this. 

Further,  while  there  were  some  still  who  kept  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  for  a  while,  all  these  invariably 
kept  the  Lord's  Day. 

No  exception  to  this  can  be  found  whether  or- 
thodox or  heretic.  All  observe  the  Lord's  Day. 
Even  Sabbatarians  are  compelled  to  admit  this. 
Elder  Andrews  says :  "  Those  Fathers  who  hallow 
the  Sabbath  do  generally  associate  with  it  the  fes- 
tival called  by  them  the  Lord's  Day."  * 
*  **  Testimony  of  the  Fathers,"  p.  11. 


SUNDAY    OBSERVANCE  BEGAN   IN  THE  EAST    187 

Yes,  while  some  did,  for  a  while,  keep  the  Sab- 
bath, yet  even  they,  in  every  instance,  also  kept  the 
Lord's  Day. 

"  /  have  read  this  chapter  and  find  it  correct 

— Bishop  Raphael." 

Bishop  Eaphael  was  educated  in  three  seminaries  : 
Damascus,  Constantinople,  and  Kiev,  Russia.  He 
has  twice  received  the  degree  of  "  Doctor  of  Divin- 
ity." He  is  the  head  of  the  Greek  Orthodox  Church 
in  America.  Hence,  he  is  well  qualified  to  state 
correctly  the  position  of  the  Eastern  Church  on  this 
question. 


YIII 
CONSTANTINE'S  SUNDAY  LAW,  A.  D.  321 

CONST ANTINE,  the  first  Christian  emperor 
of  Eome,  issued  the  following  edict  in 
A.  D.  321 : 

"Let  all  the  judges  and  town  people,  and  the 
occupation  of  all  trades,  rest  on  the  venerable  day 
of  the  sun,  but  let  those  who  are  situated  in  the 
country,  freely  and  at  full  liberty,  attend  to  the 
business  of  agriculture;  because  it  often  happens 
that  no  other  day  is  so  fit  for  sowing  corn  and 
planting  vines ;  lest  the  critical  moment  being  let 
slip,  men  should  lose  the  commodities  granted  by 
heaven."  This  law  applied  only  to  the  Koman 
Empire.  At  that  date  there  were  numerous  Chris- 
tian Churches  outside  of  the  Eoman  jurisdiction, 
all  keeping  Sunday.  (See  Chapters  YI  and  YII.) 
This  law  in  no  way  could  affect  them.  Then 
where  did  they  get  the  Lord's  Day  if  this  law  first 
introduced  it  ? 

Adventists  claim  that  this  was  a  pagan  law  be- 
cause it  does  not  use  a  Christian  term,  as  Lord's 
Day,  or  Christian  Sabbath.  The  answer  is  easy : 
Christians  needed  no  law  to  compel  them  to  keep 
the  day,  for  they  all  kept  it  already  as  a  Christian 
duty.     But  the  pagans  kept  no  weekly  day.     Hence 

188 


CONSTANTINE'S  SUNDAY  LAW  189 

the  law  was  directed  to  them,  and,  of  course,  used 
pagan  terms  for  that  day,  "  the  day  of  the  sun." 
That  is  the  manifest  explanation  of  why  the  pagan 
name  was  used.  Gibbon  says :  "  Constantine  styles 
the  Lord's  Day  Dies  Solis^  a  name  which  could  not 
offend  the  ears  of  his  pagan  subjects."  ' 

Doctor  Schaff  says ;  "  So  long  as  Christianity  was 
not  recognized  and  protected  by  the  state,  the  observ- 
ance of  Sunday  was  purely  religious,  a  strictly  vol- 
untary service."  ^  "  Constantine  is  the  founder,  in 
part  at  least,  of  the  civil  observance  of  Sunday." 
Before  this  law  all  Christians  had  voluntarily  kept 
the  Lord's  Day  as  a  religious  duty.  I^ow  the  civil 
law  required  pagans  to  respect  the  Christian  rest 
day.  That  is  the  simple  truth  and  the  whole  of  it. 
Doctor  Schaff,  page  380,  continues:  "Christians 
and  pagans  had  been  accustomed  to  festival  rests ; 
Constantine  made  these  rests  to  synchronize,  and 
gave  the  preference  to  Sunday,  on  which  day 
Christians  from  the  beginning  celebrated  the  resur- 
rection of  their  Lord  and  Saviour.  This,  and  no 
more,  was  implied  in  the  famous  enactment  of  321." 
The  pagan  festivals  were  only  yearly,  not  weekly. 
Now  they  were  required  to  keep  a  weekly  rest  day 
on  Sunday  so  as  to  harmonize  with  Christians.  Ad- 
ventists  now  voluntarily  kept  Saturday  as  a  sacred 
duty  though  the  civil  law  does  not  demand  it.  Just 
so  Christians  voluntarily  kept  the  Lord's  Day  as  a 
religious  duty,  though  there  was  no  civil  law  requir- 

*  "  History  of  Rome,"  Chap,  xx,  Note  8. 
«  "  History  of  the  Church,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  379. 


190      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S   DAY  OBSERVANCE 

ing  it.  Now  the  civil  law  required  pagans  also  to 
respect  the  Christian's  day,  the  day  which  was  then 
observed  by  the  emperor  and  all  his  household. 

As  to  the  reliability  of  Doctor  Schaff  as  a  his- 
torian, Elder  J.  H.  Waggoner  says :  "  Doctor  Schaif 
is  justly  esteemed  as  a  man  of  extensive  learning, 
and  whose  testimony  regarding  facts  no  one  will 
call  in  question."  '  Good  and  true.  Doctor  Schaff 
says  Christians  from  the  beginning  voluntarily  kept 
the  resurrection  day  and  Constantine  made  a  civil 
law  requiring  the  pagans  to  make  their  festival  days 
harmonize  with  the  established  Christian  day.  The 
pagans  had  to  conform  to  the  Christian  day^  not 
Christians  to  the  pagan  day. 

As  we  have  abundantly  proved  in  Chapter  V,  the 
pagan  Eomans  had  no  weekly  festivals.  These 
festivals  were  all  yearly,  like  our  Fourth  of  July, 
Thanksgiving,  etc.  But  the  Christian's  day  was 
weekly,  every  Sunday.  Constantine  made  these  to 
synchronize.  How  ?  "  By  giving  the  preference  to 
Sunday,"  the  Christian's  day.    This  is  plain  enough. 

Notice  carefully  one  clause  in  the  decree,  viz. : 
"  Those  in  the  country  "  were  to  have  full  liberty 
to  attend  to  the  business  of  agriculture.  Doctor 
Schaff  gives  the  reason  thus:  "He  expressly  ex- 
empted the  country  districts  where  paganism  still 
prevailed."  ^  This  is  true,  and  it  shows  that  the 
pagans  did  not  keep  Sunday  nor  did  they  wish  to. 
Hence,  where  they  were  greatly  in  the  majority, 

*  "  Replies  to  Canright,"  p.  132. 

'  "  Church  History,"  3d  period,  Par.  75,  p.  379. 


CONSTANTINE'S  SUNDAY  LAW  191 

they  were  exempted  from  obeying  this  law.  But 
in  the  cities  where  Christians  largely  were,  there 
secular  business  had  to  cease.  This  law  was  made 
to  protect  Christians  and  the  Christian's  day,  not 
pagans  nor  a  pagan  day.  Because  Constantine, 
Avhile  yet  a  pagan  with  other  pagans,  reverenced 
Apollo,  the  sun-god,  Adventists  argue  that  he  rever- 
enced Sunday  as  a  sacred  day.  But  this  argument 
is  fallacious.  Sunday  was  simply  the  astrological 
name  of  the  day,  named  from  the  planet,  the 
sun.  It  had  no  religious  significance  whatever,  no 
connection  with  the  worship  of  Apollo.  He  was 
not  worshipped  on  Sunday  more  than  any  other 
week  day.  That  argument  is  founded  on  the  jingle 
of  words,  but  not  on  facts.     (See  Chapter  Y.) 

The  father  and  mother  of  Constantine  were  both 
Christians,  and  he  venerated  them  both  greatly. 
His  mother  was  the  sainted  Helena,  one  of  the 
most  devout  Christians  of  the  early  centuries.  Her 
influence  over  her  son  was  always  great.  Constan- 
tine himself  thus  states  the  reasons  which  led  him 
to  trust  in  his  father's  God,  the  God  of  the  Chris- 
tians. "  My  father  revered  the  Christian  God,  and 
uniformly  prospered,  while  the  emperors,  who 
worshipped  the  heathen  gods,  died  a  miserable 
death;  therefore,  that  I  may  enjoy  a  happy  life 
and  reign,  I  will  imitate  the  example  of  my  father, 
and  join  myself  to  the  cause  of  the  Christians  who 
are  growing  daily,  while  the  heathen  are  diminish- 
ing." *    He  reasoned  thus  when  made  emperor  in 

»  Schaff,  3d  period,  Vol.  I,  Sect.  2,  pp.  19,  20. 


192      OEIGIN  OF  THE  LOED's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

A.  D.  306.  Of  him  Eidpath  says  :  "  He  perceived 
the  conclusion  of  the  great  syllogism  in  the  logic  of 
events.  He  saw  that  destiny  was  about  to  write 
Finis  at  the  bottom  of  the  last  page  of  paganism. 
So,  for  policy,  the  emperor  began  to  favor  the 
Christians."  ' 

In  the  year  a.  d.  312,  while  on  his  march  towards 
Kome  with  his  army  to  meet  his  enemy,  the  Emperor 
Maxentius,  he  saw,  or  at  least  pretended  to  see,  in 
the  heavens,  the  sign  of  the  cross  with  the  words, 
*'  By  this  conquer."  He  then  adopted  that  as  the 
banner  for  his  army  under  which  it  ever  after 
marched,  and  always  to  victory.  Here  he  openly 
professed  conversion  to  the  Christian  religion.  He 
immediately  issued  an  edict  in  favor  of  the  Chris- 
tians. It  has  been  lost.  The  ''  Schaff-Herzog  En- 
cyclopedia," Article  "  Constantino,"  says :  "  By  the 
second  (Milan  313)  he  granted  them  not  only  free 
religious  worship  and  their  recognition  by  the  state, 
but  also  reparation  of  previously  incurred  losses. 
...  A  series  of  edicts  of  315,  316,  319  and  323 
completed  the  revolution."  By  these  edicts  pagan- 
ism was  overthrown  and  finally  outlawed  from  323. 
(See  the  life  of  Constantine  in  any  history  or  ency- 
clopedia.) 

Adventists  unfairly  try  to  place  his  conversion 
after  his  Sunday  law  in  a.  d.  321.  Thus  Mrs. 
White  says :  "  The  first  public  measure  enforcing 
Sunday  observance  was  the  law  enacted  by  Con- 
stantine two  years  before  his  profession  of  Chris- 

1  "  History  of  the  World,"  Vol.  I,  Chap,  liii,  pp.  881,  882. 


CONSTANTINE'S   SUNDAY  LAW  193 

tianity." '  This  statement  alone  destroys  her 
claim  to  inspiration,  for  it  is  nine  years  too  late, 
made  with  the  evident  intent  to  prove  his  law  was 
pagan.  Elder  J.  H.  Waggoner,  after  naming  the 
decree  of  321,  says :  "  At  the  time  when  these  decrees 
were  issued  he  had  made  no  profession  of  Christian- 
ity."^ It  is  astonishing  that  a  man  should  put  in 
print  a  statement  so  entirely  untrue.  Nothing  is 
more  clearly  stated  in  history  than  that  Constantine 
openly  professed  conversion  to  Christianity  nine 
years  before  his  Sunday  edict  was  issued.  (See 
the  life  of  Constantine  by  Eusebius.)  For  years 
before  this  he  himself  and  all  his  household  had 
piously  observed  the  Lord's  Day.  (See  Eusebius, 
as  above.) 

The  "  IsTew  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia,"  Article 
"  Constantine,"  says  :  "  The  impression  produced 
by  this  apparition  (the  vision  of  the  cross)  found  its 
consummation  in  a  dream  by  night.  It  is  certain 
from  the  sources  that  the  decisive  conversion  of 
Constantine  to  Christianity  is  to  be  fixed  at  the 
outset  of  the  campaign,  or  in  the  spring  of  312 ; 
also  that  this  conversion  rested  not  upon  a  single 
experience,  the  apparition  or  the  dream,  but  that 
preparatory  experience  cooperated  with  it.  .  .  . 
Where  in  passages  in  Eusebius  and  elsewhere  he 
speaks  of  the  one  religion  and  belief  in  one  God,  he 
means  historical  Christianity,  and  bids,  not  the 
Christians,  but  the  pagans,  to  this  doctrine,  and  in 

»  '*  Great  Controversy,"  edition  of  1884,  Chap,  xxx,  p.  391, 
^  *•  Replies  to  Canright,"  p.  29, 


194     OEIGIN  OF  THE  LORD's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

this  light  alone  did  his  Christian  and  pagan  con- 
temporaries understand  him." 

Here  is  the  clear  testimony  of  an  unbiased  au- 
thority gathered  from  all  the  facts  in  the  case  which 
places  the  professed  conversion  of  the  emperor  in 
A.  D.  312,  just  where  all  reliable  historians  do.  It 
was  nine  years  before  his  Sunday  law.  Dean  Stan- 
ley* places  the  conversion  of  Constantine  at  the 
same  date,  312,  right  after  his  vision  of  the  cross. 
He  says :  "•  That  some  such  change,  effected  by  some 
such  means,  took  place  at  this  crisis,  is  confirmed 
not  only  by  the  fact  of  Constantine's  adoption  of 
the  Christian  faith  immediately  afterwards,  but  by 
the  specific  introduction  of  the  standard  of  the  cross 
into  the  army."  Gibbon  in  his  "  History  of  Eome," 
Vol.  XI,  Chap.  XX,  p.  184,  says :  "  About  five 
months  after  the  conquest  of  Italy,  the  emperor 
made  (a.  d.  313)  a  solemn  and  authentic  declaration 
of  his  sentiments  by  the  celebrated  edict  of  Milan 
which  restored  peace  to  the  Catholic  Church." 

From  this  time  on  he  joined  himself  with  Chris- 
tians, did  all  he  safely  could  for  them  and  against 
paganism  till  in  323  he  outlawed  paganism  entirely. 

The  "Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  Article  "Con- 
stantine," says  :  "  Eome  was  naturally  the  strong- 
hold of  paganism  to  which  the  great  majority  of 
the  Senate  clung  with  great  devotion.  Constan- 
tine did  not  wish  to  do  open  violence  to  this  senti- 
ment, and  therefore  resolved  to  found  a  new  cap- 
ital." 

>  "  History  of  the  Eastern  Church,"  Lecture  6,  pp.  201, 202. 


CONSTANTINE's   SUNDAY  LAW  195 

Stanley  relates  how  the  emperor  refused  to  take 
part  in  a  popular  pagan  procession  in  Kome.  He 
openly  ridiculed  it.  Says  Stanley,  "  The  Koman 
people  were  furious.  A  riot  broke  out  in  the 
streets."  His  statue  was  stoned.  This  is  good 
proof  of  his  hatred  of  paganism.  His  opposition  to 
paganism  was  his  reason  for  forsaking  Kome.  He 
caused  his  sons  to  receive  a  Christian  education. 
Motives  of  political  expediency,  however,  caused 
him  to  delay  the  full  recognition  of  Christianity  as 
the  religion  of  the  state  until  he  became  sole  ruler 
of  the  empire. 

Adventists  are  guilty  of  misconstruing  the  plain- 
est intent  of  that  law.  They  assert  that  this  law 
compelled  pagans  and  Christians  alike  to  cease 
work  on  Sunday,  except  in  the  country  where  both 
were  allowed  to  work.  Then  they  emphasize  the 
fact  that  this  was  the  first  law  ever  enacted  for- 
bidding work  on  Sunday.  Thus  Elder  Waggoner 
says :  "  It  has  been  fully  proved  that  the  decree  of 
Constantine  was  the  first  authority  for  Sunday 
rest."  '  Yes,  certainly,  but  to  whom  did  this  law 
apply  ?  To  ^pagans.  It  was  the  first  civil  law  by 
the  state  after  its  head  had  become  Christian. 
Again  Waggoner  says  :  "  In  the  country  it  per- 
mitted all  to  labor,  both  pagans  and  Christians."  ^ 
On  this  it  is  fair  to  quote:  "A  half  truth  is  as 
bad  as  a  lie."  Does  that  law  in  any  way  mention 
Christians  ?  No.  Waggoner  assumes  that  it  does, 
and  by  this  false  assumption  concludes  the  Chris- 

'  *'  Keplies  to  Canright,"  p.  136.  »  lUd.^  p.  150. 


196     OEIGIN  OF  THE  LOBD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

tians  worked  Sunday,  when  there  is  not  a  hint  of 
such  a  thing  in  that  law.  Our  law  now  permits 
people  to  do  many  things  which  no  Christian  will 
do.  At  that  time  Christians  reverenced  the  Lord's 
Day  regardless  of  what  the  civil  law  permitted. 
Because  the  law  permitted  farmers  to  work  Sunday, 
Adventists  assert  that  Christians  worked  on  Sunday 
up  till  that  time.  They  have  no  proof  of  this.  (See 
this  work,  Chapter  YI.)  For  three  hundred  years 
it  had  been  a  sacred  day  with  Christians.  They 
kept  it  voluntarily,  as  Doctor  Schaff  states  above, 
hence  the  law  in  no  way  applied  to  them,  but  it 
did  require  pagans,  especially  in  cities  where  Chris- 
tians mostly  were,  to  cease  work  on  that  day. 
Constantine,  his  mother  Helena,  all  his  children, 
his  household,  his  servants,  and  he  himself  de- 
voutly observed  the  Lord's  Day  at  the  time  this 
edict  was  issued,  321.  Adventists  try  to  ignore 
all  this  to  carry  their  theory  that  this  was  a 
pagan  law  requiring  Christians  to  reverence  a 
pagan  day.  It  is  a  bad  cause  that  requires  such 
reasoning. 

Another  Seventh-Day  advocate,  Eev.  A.  H.  Lewis, 
D.  D.,  says  :  "  This  edict  makes  no  reference  to  the 
day  as  a  Sabbath,  as  the  Lord's  Day,  or  as  any  way 
connected  with  Christianity.  Neither  is  it  an  edict 
addressed  to  Christians."  '  This  is  a  good  confes- 
sion and  states  the  truth  exactly.  That  law  was 
for  pagans  who  had  never  rested  Sundays.  This 
law  required  them  to  do  what  they  had  never  done 

»  "Sabbath  and  Sunday,"  p.  142. 


CONSTANTINE's  SUNDAY  LAW  197 

before — cease  work  on  Sunday.  Christians  re- 
quired no  such  law,  for  they  kept  the  day  as  a  re- 
ligious duty  without  any  civil  law  requiring  it.  It 
would  have  been  absurd  and  useless  for  Constantine 
to  issue  an  edict  forbidding  Christians  to  work  on 
the  Lord's  Day  when  for  three  hundred  years  that 
had  been  a  part  of  their  sacred  faith.  The  very 
argument  Sabbatarians  make  to  prove  that  this 
law  was  addressed  to  pagans,  in  pagan  terms,  is 
good  proof  that  Christians  needed  no  such  law. 
They  kept  Sunday  voluntarily.  Look  at  the  ab- 
surdity of  the  Adventist  theory :  The  pagans  were 
keeping  Sunday ;  Christians  were  not,  but  instead 
were  keeping  Saturday.  Constantine  wished  all  to 
keep  the  same  day.  To  whom  then  would  he  have 
addressed  Lis  law  ?  To  Christians,  of  course,  re- 
quiring them  to  change  their  day.  But  he  did  no 
such  thing ;  for  there  was  no  occasion  for  it. 

Elder  J.  H.  Waggoner  makes  this  confession: 
"Constantine  did  nothing  whatever  that  can  be 
construed  into  changing  the  Sabbath.  In  his  de- 
crees he  said  not  one  word  either  for  or  against 
keeping  the  Sabbath  of  the  Bible.  To  this  he  did 
not  refer  in  any  way."  '  Of  course  not,  for  his  law 
was  addressed  only  to  pagans  who  kept  neither 
Saturday  nor  Sunday.  But  after  his  professed  con- 
version in  312,  did  he  not  keep  pagans  in  high 
offices  ?  Did  he  not  order  sacrifices  to  be  made  to 
pagan  gods  ?  Did  he  not  order  some  pagan  rites 
to  be  performed  for  himself  ?    Yes.     Why  ?    Out 

*  "  Replies  to  Canright,"  pp.  149,  150. 


198     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

of  policy.  He  had  to  do  so  to  avoid  a  rebellion  of 
his  pagan  subjects  who  were  yet  numerous  and 
powerful.  He  had  to  bide  his  time  as  all  wise 
rulers  and  reformers  do.  He  could  not  change  the 
religion  and  customs  of  a  whole  empire  in  a  day. 
He  used  common  sense,  as  Lincoln  did  in  abolishing 
slavery.  Lincoln  delayed  it  years  after  radicals  de- 
nounced him  for  his  half  measures  and  delay.  Now 
all  justify  the  course  he  took.  Constantine  pur- 
sued the  same  wise  course  in  abolishing  paganism. 
So  Adventists  denounce  him  as  half  pagan  because 
he  did  not  play  the  fool  and  fanatic  and  try  to  do 
immediately  what  was  impossible.  When  he  first 
became  emperor  pagans  were  in  the  majority  and 
filled  all  important  offices.  He  had  these  to  reckon 
with  till  he  could  gradually  change  all  this.  By 
this  course  he  avoided  an  opposition  which  would 
have  defeated  him.  Then  he  accomplished  the  re- 
ligious revolution  in  a  remarkably  short  time, — ten 
years.  Neither  before  nor  since  has  the  world 
ever  witnessed  so  tremendous  a  revolution  in  so 
short  a  period,  and  his  conversion  to  Christianity 
did  it. 

I  have  before  me  the  "  Life  of  Constantine,"  by 
Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Caesarea,  Palestine.  He  w^as 
often  with  the  emperor,  in  his  palace,  at  his  table, 
in  church,  in  church  councils,  etc.  He  related  how 
the  emperor,  as  rapidly  as  possible,  favored  Chris- 
tians and  put  down  paganism,  closed  their  temples, 
forbade  their  worship,  and  wrote  and  preached 
against  idols. 


CONSTANTINE's  SUNDAY  LAW  199 

But  Constantine,  long  after  he  professed  Chris- 
tianity, retained  the  heathen  title  and  office  of 
"  Pontifix  Maximus,"  or  Supreme  Pontiff  of  pagan- 
ism. Yes,  because  that  still  gave  him  authority  to 
regulate  that  worship,  and  he  used  it  to  gradually 
curtail  one  thing  after  another  in  that  religion  till, 
in  323,  he  suppressed  it  entirely.  In  this  he  fol- 
lowed a  successful  policy,  that  is  all. 

In  the  preceding  pages  we  have  clearly  proved 
that  Christians  had  kept  Sunday  as  a  sacred  day 
centuries  before  the  time  of  Constantine.  Eusebius, 
who  lived  with  Constantine,  repeatedly  says  that 
all  Christians  were  keeping  Sunday  at  that  time, 
and  before.  We  have  proved  positively,  '  ack  a 
few  pages,  that  the  pagan  Eomans  did  not  rest  on 
Sunday,  and  hence  had  no  Sunday  rest  day  to  give 
to  Christians. 

ISTothing  can  be  more  reasonable  and  simple  than 
the  fact  that  when  Constantine  professed  Chris- 
tianity he  should,  as  soon  as  possible,  make  a  law 
to  protect  the  Christian  rest  day,  the  same  as  Chris- 
tian rulers  have  done  ever  since.  That  is  just  what 
he  did  do,  and  that  is  the  whole  of  it.  Whether 
he  was  a  really  converted  man,  or  a  mere  professor 
from  policy,  has  no  bearing  on  the  question.  He 
professed  to  be  a  Christian,  and  all  his  edicts  were 
issued  to  favor  them,  the  Sunday  law  with  the 
rest. 

That  the  law  was  enacted  specially  to  protect  the 
Lord's  Day  for  Christian  worship  is  distinctly  stated 
by  Eusebius  in  his  "Life  of  Constantine,"  Chapter      ^ 


200      OBIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

XVIII.  Eusebius  lived  right  there  where  this  law 
was  made  and  when  it  was  made.  He  was  closely 
associated  with  Constantine,  and  has  stated  clearly 
why  that  law  was  given.  Would  he  not  know 
better  than  some  partisan  Adventist  sixteen  cen- 
tm'ies  later?  Hear  Eusebius;  "He  [Constantine] 
ordained,  too,  that  one  day  should  be  regarded  as 
a  special  occasion  for  prayer ;  I  mean  that  which 
is  truly  the  first  and  chief  of  all,  the  Day  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour.  The  entire  care  of  his  house- 
hold was  entrusted  to  deacons  and  other  ministers 
consecrated  to  the  service  of  God,  and  distinguished 
for  gravity  of  life  and  every  other  virtue;  while 
his  trusty  body-guard,  strong  in  affection  and 
fidelity  to  his  person,  found  in  their  emperor  an 
instructor  in  the  practice  of  piety,  and,  like  him, 
held  the  Lord's  salutary  day  in  honor,  and  per- 
formed on  that  day  the  devotions  which  he  loved. 
The  same  observance  was  recommended  by  this 
blessed  prince  to  all  classes  of  his  subjects;  his 
earnest  desire  being  gradually  to  lead  all  mankind 
to  the  worship  of  God.  Accordingly  he  enjoined 
on  all  the  subjects  of  the  Koman  Empire  to  observe 
the  Lord's  Day  as  a  day  of  rest." 

Notice  that  all  the  servants  in  Constantine's 
household  were  Christians,  and  all  kept  the  Lord's 
Day  with  the  emperor.  He  commanded  all  his 
subjects  to  rest  that  day  so  that  Christians  could 
be  free  to  attend  worship  on  the  Lord's  Day. 
Many  Christians  were  slaves  to  pagan  masters,  and 
could  not  rest  unless  their  owners  did.     This  law 


OONSTANTINE's  SUNDAY  LAW  201 

compelled  these  pagan  masters  to  cease  work  on 
that  day.  Then  their  slaves  could  keep  the  Lord's 
Day. 

Constantine  considered  himself  called  of  God  to 
care  for  the  Church  in  external  things  as  the  bishops 
were  to  care  for  the  internal  matters.  He  said : 
"  You  are  bishops  whose  jurisdiction  is  within  the 
Church.  I  also  am  a  bishop,  ordained  by  God  to 
overlook  whatever  is  external  to  the  Church."^ 
That  was  why  he  made  his  Sunday  law — it  was  to 
help  the  Church. 

Then  there  is  another  reliable  witness  to  the  fact 
that  Constantiiie's  Sunday  law  was  to  protect  the 
Lord's  Day,  not  a  pagan  day.  The  historian 
Sozomen  was  born  in  Palestine,  the  home  of  the 
apostles,  only  about  sixty  years  after  the  death  of 
Constantine.  He  was  a  noted  lawyer  in  Constanti- 
nople, the  home  of  Constantine  ;  hence,  was  familiar 
with  all  the  laws  of  the  emperor,  and  knew  their 
object.  Of  that  Sunday  law  he  says:  "He  also 
enjoined  the  observance  of  the  day  termed  the 
Lord's  Day,  which  the  Jews  call  the  first  day  of 
the  week.  He  honored  the  Lord's  Day,  because 
on  it  Christ  arose  from  the  dead."^ 

This  witness  by  such  an  authority  living  right 
there  should  be,  and  is,  decisive.  That  law  was  to 
protect  the  Lord's  Day  because  Christ  arose  that 
day,  not  because  it  was  a  pagan  festival  day. 
Every  candid  man  must  see  this.     This  entirely 

*  Eusebius,  "  Life  of  Constantine,"  Chap,  xxiv, 
'  •*  Ecol.  Hist.,"  Chap,  ix,  p.  22. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

explodes  the  Adventists'  theory  that  it  was  a  pagan 
law  enjoining  a  pagan  day. 

Elder  A.  T.  Jones  was  once  the  editor  of  their 
church  paper,  and  the  best  posted  historian  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  ever  had.  In  his  recent  book, 
"  The  Eeformation,"  published  in  1913,  he  not  only 
admits,  but  truthfully  argues,  that  Constan tine's 
Sunday  law  was  issued  at  the  request  of  Christians 
to  help  the  Church.  He  says  :  "  The  Sunday  in- 
stitution and  all  that  was  attached  to  it  was  wholly 
of  the  Church.  And  when  from  the  federated 
Church  the  State  accepted  and  embodied  in  the 
law  this  exclusively  church  institution,  this,  in  the 
very  fact  of  the  doing  of  it,  was  the  union  of  the 
Church  and  the  State."  "  It  was  only  in  the 
furtherance  of  the  grand  scheme  of  the  bishops 
and  their  church-combine  to  establish  the  State  as 
Hhe  Kingdom  of  God  '  "  (page  375). 

Here  we  have  the  real  truth  about  that  Sunday 
law.  It  was  issued  by  a  professedly  Christian 
emperor,  to  favor  the  Christian  Church  by  protect- 
ing their  Christian  day  of  worship  long  held  sacred 
by  them.  It  is  readily  agreed  that  the  zeal  of 
Constantine  to  help  the  Church  was  unwise  and 
detrimental  in  its  results ;  but  the  fact  remains  just 
the  same. 

The  edict  of  Constantine  was  the  very  first  law 
ever  made  by  any  one  prohibiting  secular  business 
on  Sunday.  All  historians  agree  in  this.  This 
very  fact  overthrows  the  Adventists'  claim  that 
the  day,  as  a  rest  day,  originated  with  the  pagans  I 


CONSTANTINE'S  SUNDAY  LAW  203 

Consider  now :  If  these  pagan  Komans  had  been 
keeping  Sunday  as  a  sacred  day  of  worship  why  did 
they  never  before  have  a  law  forbidding  work  on  that 
day  ?  Did  all  these  heathens,  for  ages,  cease  their 
work  that  day  voluntarily  without  any  law  requir- 
ing it  ?  Even  in  Christian  lands,  with  strict  laws 
against  Sunday  business,  it  is  difficult  to  get  people 
to  observe  the  day.  Were  the  heathens  more  re- 
ligious than  Christians  ?  The  Koman  emperor  was 
always  the  head  of  the  pagan  religion,  the  same  as 
the  Pope  is  the  head  of  the  Catholic  Church.  His 
edict  was  law  to  them.  He  was  "  Pontifix  Maxi- 
mus,"  which  authorized  him  to  regulate  the  pagan 
worship.  If  it  was  part  of  the  pagan  religion  to 
regard  the  day  as  sacred,  why  is  it  that  the  first  "^ 
law  prohibiting  work  on  Sunday  was  never  issued 
till  the  Koman  emperor  professed  Christianity  ?  I 
have  asked  Adventists  this  question  and  they  make 
only  an  evasive  answer.  The  simple  fact  is  this : 
Up  till  the  time  of  Constantine  Christians  were 
terribly  persecuted  and  were  in  the  minority,  and 
so  could  make  no  civil  law  forbidding  work  on  ^ 
Sunday,  the  day  they  all  kept,  as  we  have  seen. 
The  pagans  did  not  observe  Sunday,  but  worked 
that  day,  the  same  as  on  all  other  days.  Hence, 
they  wanted  no  law  to  prohibit  the  work  they 
were  all  accustomed  to  do  that  day.  A  Sunday 
law  was  just  what  the  pagans  did  not  want ;  hence, 
he,  by  his  authority  as  emperor,  issued  an  edict 
requiring  his  pagan  subjects  to  rest  on  Sunday,  the 
same  as  Christians  did  and  had  done  for  three  hun- 


204     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

dred  years.  That  law  was  made  to  favor  Chris- 
tians, not  pagans.  That  this  law  was  made  at  the 
request  of  Christians  is  admitted  by  Adventists. 
Again  Elder  Jones,  in  the  Battle  Creek  Journal^ 
December  11, 1888, says  :  "It  is  demonstrated  that 
the  first  Sunday  law  that  ever  was  enacted  was  at 
the  request  of  the  Church  ;  it  was  in  behalf  of  the 
Church,  and  it  was  expressly  to  help  the  Church." 
This  truthful  admission  overthrows  the  claim 
that  this  law  was  a  pagan  law  to  protect  a  pagan 
day.  It  was  exactly  the  opposite — a  law  to  compel 
pagans  to  cease  work  on  the  day  which  Christians 
kept  as  a  sacred  day.  Put  with  this  the  admission 
of  Waggoner  above  quoted,  viz.,  that  "  the  idea  of 
the  rest  from  worldly  labor  in  its  worship  was  en- 
tirely  new  to  pagans."  So  it  was,  but  Christians 
had  kept  the  day  for  centuries.  With  whom,  then, 
"  originated  "  the  custom  of  resting  from  work  on 
Sunday  and  keeping  it  as  a  sacred  day  of  worship  ? 
It  had  its  origin  with  Christians,  not  with  pagans. 


IX 

THE  LOED'S  DAY  AT  THE  COUNCILS  OP 
OTOE,  A.D.  325  AND  LAODICEA,  A.  D.  364 

THIS  world-renowned  council  was  held  at 
Nice  in  Grecian  territory  near  Constanti- 
nople, A.  D.  325.  It  was  the  first  general 
council  of  the  Christian  Church.  Dean  Stanley,  in 
his  "  History  of  the  Eastern  Church,"  devotes  one 
hundred  pages  to  this  council.  On  page  99  he  says 
it  was  Eastern,  held  in  the  center  of  the  Eastern 
Church.  Its  decrees  were  accepted  by  all  Chris- 
tendom "  as  a  final  settlement  of  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  Christianity  "  (page  102).  It  was  a 
democratic  assembly  ;  no  Pope  ruled  over  it  (page 
107).  In  calling  the  council,  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
was  not  consulted,  nor  did  he  or  any  bishop  from 
Italy  attend.  Only  two  presbyters  came  to  repre- 
sent Rome  and  only  five  or  six  bishops  from  all  the 
West.  There  were  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
bishops  present.  All  these  were  from  the  Eastern 
Greek  Churches,  except  the  six  as  above.  It  was 
emphatically  an  Eastern  Greek  council,  held  in 
Greek  territory,  and  conducted  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage. The  "Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  Article 
"Nice,"  says:  "The  West  was  but  feebly  repre- 
sented. Two  presbyters  as  deputies  of  the  Roman 
Bishop,  Sylvester,  were  present.     Thus  an  immense 

205 


206      OEIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

majority  of  the  Synod  hailed  from  the  East." 
McClintock  and  Strong's  "  Encyclopedia  "  says : 
"  Most  of  the  Eastern  provinces  were  strongly  rep- 
resented." Dean  Stanley  names  bishops  present 
"  from  far  up  the  Nile,"  from  "  the  interior  of 
Asia,"  one  from  Armenia,  and  one  from  far-off  India. 

The  "  Catholic  Encyclopedia  "  says ;  "  Most  of 
the  bishops  present  were  Greeks."  It  finds  only 
five  Western  bishops  present. 

Eusebius  in  his  "Life  of  Constantine,"  Chap- 
ter YII,  names  the  many  countries  from  whence 
they  came,  as  "  Syrians  and  Cilicians,  Phoenicians 
and  Arabians,  delegates  from  Palestine,  and  others 
from  Egypt,  Thebians  and  Libyans,  with  those 
who  came  from  the  region  of  Mesopotamia.  A 
Persian  bishop  too  was  present  at  this  conference, 
nor  was  even  a  Scythian  found  wanting  to  the 
number.  Pontus,  Galatia,  and  Pamphylia,  Cappa- 
docia,  Asia,  and  Phrygia,  furnished  the  most  dis- 
tinguished prelates,  while  those  who  dwelt  in  the 
remotest  districts  of  Thrace  and  Macedonia,  of 
Achaia  and  Epirus  were  notwithstanding  present. 
Even  from  Spain  "  one  came.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  this  list  agrees  with  the  countries  named  in 
Acts  ii.  on  Pentecost.  Bishops  now  came  from  all 
those  countries.  Neither  Rome  nor  Italy  was  even 
mentioned  by  Eusebius.  As  this  was  a  general 
council  of  Christendom  at  that  date,  325,  it  shows 
how  little  influence  the  Roman  Church  had  at  that 
time. 

At  that  date  there  were  one  thousand  Greek 


COUNCILS  OF  NICE  AND  LAODICEA         207 

bishops,  representing  three  million  Christians  in 
the  East.  Doctor  Schaff  estimates  that  there  were 
from  twelve  to  fifteen  hundred  of  the  lower  clergy 
in  that  council  besides  the  three  hundred  and  eight- 
een bishops,  or  eighteen  hundred  in  all.  Of  these 
only  six  were  from  the  West.  The  twentieth 
Article  unanimously  adopted  by  that  council  reads 
thus :  "  As  some  kneel  on  the  Lord's  Day  and  on 
the  days  of  the  Pentecost,  the  holy  synod  has  de- 
creed that  for  the  observance  of  a  general  rule,  all 
should  offer  their  prayers  to  God  standing." 

This,  it  will  be  seen,  simply  recognizes  the  Lord's 
Day  as  a  well-known  Christian  day  of  worship  fa- 
miliar to  all  that  great  Eastern  council.  There  was 
no  discussion  over  it,  no  opposition  to  it.  Here 
were  eighteen  hundred  bishops  and  clergy  nearly 
all  from  the  Eastern  Churches.  Did  any  one  of 
them  object  that  they  kept  the  Sabbath  instead  of 
the  Lord's  Day  ?  No,  not  a  hint  of  it.  All  were 
agreed  on  the  day.  And  this  was  over  a  hundred 
years  before  the  Papacy  was  born  and  only  four 
years  after  Constantine's  Sunday  law  of  A.  d.  321. 
Did  any  of  those  eighteen  hundred  ministers  of 
the  old  established  Greek  Churches  object  that  the 
Lord's  Day  was  a  new  and  pagan  day  which  had 
recently  been  imposed  upon  them?  Could  all 
Christendom  be  so  quickly  and  easily  changed  in 
so  important  a  matter  as  that  and  not  a  single  dele- 
gate raise  an  objection?  The  simple  fact  that 
this  great  council,  so  soon  after  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  should  unanimously,  without  a  question, 


208      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

endorse  the  Lord's  Day  is  proof  positive  that  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  Day  had  long  been  the 
established  custom  of  the  entire  Church.  The 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  the  first  Church  of  all,  was 
there,  and  voted  with  the  rest.  What  was  said 
about  keeping  the  Sabbath  ?  Not  a  word.  It  is 
not  even  mentioned  in  any  way.  This  shows  that 
it  had  been  dropped  very  long  before  this. 

An  editorial  in  the  Advent  Review  and  Herald^ 
February  26,  1914,  quotes  the  following :  "  I  find 
that  three  hundred  and  twenty-five  years  after 
Christianity  was  born,  a  council  of  human  be- 
ings, called  the  Council  of  Nice,  convened  by  a 
human  being  named  Constantine  the  Great,  insti- 
tuted the  first  day  Sabbath  to  displace  the  seventh 
day  Sabbath."  The  editor  endorses  this  language 
thus :  "  The  position  which  the  writer  of  the  letter 
takes  is  impregnable  and  the  arguments  unanswer- 
able." 

So  according  to  the  Review^  the  editor,  and  this 
writer,  the  first  day  as  the  Sabbath  was  "  instituted  " 
here  and  by  this  great  council !  But  as  we  have 
seen,  this  was  an  Eastern  council,  not  a  Western 
one ;  a  Greek  council,  not  a  Koman  one.  Out  of 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops  present,  only 
six  were  from  the  West,  or  Koman  territory,  only 
two  presbyters  from  Kome  or  Italy.  The  Churches 
of  Kome,  Italy,  and  the  West  were  of  so  little 
account  in  that  great  council  that  Eusebius  in  his 
lengthy  account  of  it  does  not  even  mention  Rome 
nor  Italy  !     So,  then,  if  the  editor  and  his  writer 


COUNCILS   OF  NICE  AND   LAODICEA         209 

are  correct,  the  Lord's  Day  was  instituted  by  the 
Eastern  Greek  Church,  not  by  the  Eoman  Church, 
nor  by  the  Pope,  nor  by  the  Papacy,  for  neither  had 
any  influence  in  this  council.  Their  own  argument 
upsets  their  claim  that  Kome  changed  the  day. 

But,  as  noted  above,  this  Greek  council  at  Nice, 
A.  D.  325,  in  no  way  "  instituted "  the  first  day 
Sabbath  to  displace  the  seventh  day  Sabbath. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  hint  of  such  a  thing. 
That  is  purely  an  Advent  invention,  a  fair  illustra- 
tion of  their  groundless  assumptions.  The  Sabbath 
is  not  even  mentioned.  It  simply  recognized  the 
Lord's  Day  as  a  well-known,  previously  existing 
institution,  and  only  regulated  the  attitude  in  ^- 
prayer  on  that  day.  The  change  of  the  day  is  not 
even  mentioned.  It  is  by  such  unwarranted  state- 
ments that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  can  be  defended. 

Here,  then,  were  in  this  august  body  the  most 
learned  and  devoted  Christian  delegates  just  out 
from  the  fires  of  martyrdom,  representing  over 
three  million  Eastern  Greek  Christians  in  Churches 
founded  by  the  apostles  only  a  short  time  before. 
All  were  unanimous  in  keeping  the  Lord's  Day. 
Had  the  pagans  from  the  then  far-off  Eoman  coun- 
tries brought  a  pagan  day  to  these  devout  Greek 
Churches,  and  had  over  three  million  Greek  Chris- 
tians all  immediately  given  up  the  old  Sabbath  and 
readily  accepted  this  new  pagan  Eoman  day  with- 
out argument  or  protest  ?  And  Adventists  ask  us 
to  believe  all  that  or  be  lost ! 

Now  ) J^ten  to  the  following  from  the  last  edition, 


210      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

1912,  of  the  "  Advent  History  of  the  Sabbath  " : 
"Both  Gnosticism  and  the  council  set  aside  the 
Sabbath  of  Jehovah.  .  .  .  The  emperor  and 
the  council  showed  such  aversion  to  the  Sabbath  of 
the  Lord  "  (pages  394,  395). 

It  makes  one  sad  to  read  such  contradiction  of 
the  plainest  facts  of  history.  Neither  the  emperor 
nor  the  council  so  much  as  mentioned  the  Sabbath 
in  any  way.  How  then  did  they  show  aversion  to 
the  Sabbath  ?  Such  unwarranted  assertions  are 
frequently  to  be  found  all  through  their  "History 
of  the  Sabbath  "  and  other  books. 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  LAODICEA,  A.  D.  364 

Over  twenty  years  ago  in  a  widely-circulated 
article  the  present  writer  affirmed  that  outside  of 
Catholic  catechisms,  Adventists  could  produce  no 
proof  that  the  Popes,  the  Papacy,  or  the  Eoman 
Church  changed  the  Sabbath.  Elder  J.  H. 
Waggoner,  one  of  their  ablest  authors,  was  ap- 
pointed to  the  task.  Every  facility  was  afforded 
him.  The  libraries  of  America  and  Europe  were 
searched.  As  the  best  he  could  do  he  selected  the 
Council  of  Laodicea,  a.  d.  364,  as  the  place  and 
time  when  and  where  the  Sabbath  was  changed  by 
the  Pope.  The  twenty-ninth  canon  of  that  council 
reads  thus :  "  Christians  ought  not  to  Judaize  and 
to  rest  in  the  Sabbath,  but  to  work  in  that  day ; 
but  preferring  the  Lord's  Day,  should  rest,  if 
possible,  as  Christians.  Wherefore  if  they  shall  be 
found  to  Judaize,  let  them  be  accursed  from  Christ." 


COUNCILS   OF   NICE  AND   LAODICEA         211 

On  this  Elder  Waggoner  says :  "  N'ow,  if  any  one 
can  imagine  what  would  be  changing  the  Sabbath, 
if  this  is  not,  I  would  be  extremely  happy  to  learn 
what  it  could  be."  "Now  I  claim  that  I  have 
completely  met  his  demand ;  I  have  shown  the 
time,  the  place,  and  the  power  that  changed  the 
Sabbath."  '  He  claims  that  this  was  "  a  Catholic 
council,"  and  that  "  historians  early  and  late  have 
made  much  mention  "  of  this  council.  Now  let  us 
examine  his  position. 

1.  If  the  Sabbath  was  changed  to  Sunday  by 
the  Pope  right  here,  as  he  affirms,  then  certainly 
it  was  not  changed  before  nor  after  nor  at  any 
other  place.  So  if  this  fails  their  whole  cause  is 
lost.  Let  the  reader  mark  the  importance  of  this 
fact. 

2.  He  admits  what  every  scholar  knows,  that 
till  after  the  time  of  Constantino  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  had  no  "  authority  whatever  above  the  other 
bishops  "  and  so  could  not  have  changed  the  Sabbath 
before  that  time.  He  says  :  "  It  was  Constantino 
himself  that  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Papacy."  ^ 
Surely  the  Papacy  did  not  exist  before  its  founda- 
tion was  laid. 

3.  He  admits,  as  already  shown,  that  Constantino 
did  nothing  to  change  the  Sabbath. 

4.  But  we  have  abundantly  proved  in  preced- 
ing pages  that  all  Christians  long  before  this  date 
were  unanimous  in  observing  the  Lord's  Day. 
This  one  simple  fact  proves  the  utter  absurdity  of 

»  "  Eeplies  to  Canright,"  pp.  141,  151.  ^  jjj-^^^  p,  143, 


212      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

the  claim  that  the  Sabbath  was  changed  at  Laodicea, 
A.  D.  364,  or  by  the  Papacy  at  any  time. 

5.  In  the  year  324,  or  just  forty  years  before 
the  Council  of  Laodicea,  Eusebius,  Bishop  of 
Caesarea,  Palestine,  wrote  his  celebrated  history 
of  Christianity.  He  had  every  possible  opportu- 
nity to  know  what  Christians  did  throughout  the 
world.  He  says  :  "  And  all  things  whatsoever  that 
it  was  the  duty  to  do  on  the  Sabbath,  these  we 
have  transferred  to  the  Lord's  Day  as  more  honor- 
able than  the  Jewish  Sabbath."  ' 

That  is  the  way  the  Sabbath  and  Sunday  stood 
in  the  Church  forty  years  before  Laodicea.  They 
did  not  keep  the  Sabbath,  but  did  keep  the  Lord's 
Day,  had  transferred  all  things  to  it.  How  much 
truth,  then,  can  there  be  in  the  position  that  the 
Sabbath  was  changed  to  Sunday  by  the  Pope  forty 
years  later  ? 

But  let  us  look  at  the  real  facts  about  the  council 
at  Laodicea.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  claim  two 
things,  viz. :  that  the  Sabbath  was  changed  by  the 
Eoman  Church,  and  that  it  was  done  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  Pope.  Then  they  select  the  Council 
of  Laodicea  as  the  place  and  time.     But, 

1.  Laodicea  is  not  Rome.  It  is  situated  in  Asia 
Minor  over  1,000  miles  east  of  Rome.  It  was  in 
Asia,  not  in  Europe.  It  was  an  Eastern,  not  a 
Western  town,  an  Oriental,  not  a  Latin  city. 

2.  It  was  a  Greek,  not  a  Roman  city. 

3.  The  Pope  of  Rome  did  not  attend  this  council 

^Quoted  in  "Sabbath  Manual,"  p.  127. 


COUNCILS   OF  NICE  AND   LAODICEA         213 

at  Laodicea,  a.  d.  364.    Does  Waggoner  claim  that 
he  did  ?    No,  for  he  knew  he  did  not. 

4.  The  Pope  did  not  attend,  nor  did  he  send  a 
legate  or  a  delegate  or  any  one  to  represent  him. 
In  fact,  neither  the  Eoman  Church  nor  the  Pope 
had  anything  to  do  with  the  council  in  any  way, 
shape,  or  manner.  It  was  held  without  even  their 
knowledge  or  consent. 

5.  At  this  early  date,  A.  D.  364,  the  Popes,  or 
rather  Bishops  of  Kome,  had  no  authority  over 
other  bishops.  It  was  two  hundred  years  later  be- 
fore they  were  invested  with  authority  over  even 
the  Western  Churches.  Neither  the  Pope,  nor  the 
Papacy  ever  had  any  authority  whatever  over  the 
Eastern  Churches  where  this  little  council  was  held. 
(See  Bower's  "  History  of  the  Popes,"  or  any  church 
history.)  Speaking  of  Sylvester,  who  was  Bishop 
of  Kome  a.  d.  314  to  336,  only  twenty-eight  years 
before  this  council  at  Laodicea,  Elder  Waggoner 
says :  "  The  Bishop  of  Eome  had  not  then  yet 
attained  to  any  authority  whatever  above  the 
other  bishops."'  This  is  true.  Did  they  in  the 
next  twenty-eight  years  gain  authority  to  change 
the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath  from  one  day  to 
another  throughout  the  whole  world  ?  Prepos- 
terous ! 

6.  Liberius  was  Bishop  of  Kome  at  the  time  of 
this  council  at  Laodicea.  He  was  degraded  from 
his  office,  banished,  and  treated  with  the  utmost 
contempt.     Bower  says  that  in  order  to  end  his 

*  "  Replies  to  Canright,"  p.  143. 


214      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

exile,  Liberius  "  wrote  in  a  most  submissive  and 
cringing  style  to  the  Eastern  bishops." '  And  this 
was  the  Pope  who  changed  the  Sabbath  at  a  council 
of  these  same  Eastern  bishops,  1,000  miles  away, 
which  he  never  attended ! 

7.  The  Council  of  Laodicea  was  only  a  local 
council,  a  small,  unimportant  affair  and  not  a  gen- 
eral council  at  all.  Elder  Waggoner  magnifies  it 
into  a  great  "  Catholic  [general]  council,"  a  claim 
which  is  utterly  false.  The  general  councils  are : 
1.  That  at  Mce,  A.  d.  325.  2.  That  at  Constanti- 
nople, A.  D.  381.  3.  That  at  Ephesus,  A.  D.  431,  etc. 
(See  Chapter  YIII  of  this  work,  p.  188.  See  also  the 
list  in  Johnson's  "  Cyclopedia,"  or  any  ecclesiastical 
history.)  Bower  in  his  extensive  work,  the  "  History 
of  the  Popes,"  gives  an  account  of  all  the  general 
councils,  the  important  local  councils,  and  all  with 
which  Rome  or  the  Popes  had  to  do,  but  does  not 
even  mention  this  one  at  Laodicea.  He  mentions 
many  councils  held  about  that  time,  but  not  this 
one.  He  says :  "  Several  other  councils  were  held 
from  the  year  363  to  368,  of  which  we  have  no  par- 
ticular account."  ^ 

8.  I  have  searched  through  a  number  of  cyclo- 
pedias and  church  histories  and  can  find  no  men- 
tion at  all  of  the  council  at  Laodicea  in  most  of 
them,  and  only  a  few  lines  in  any.  Doctor  Schaff, 
in  his  "  History  of  the  Church,"  gives  an  extended 
account  of   all  the  general  councils,  but   makes 

*  '*  History  of  the  Popes,"  Vol.  I,  p.  64. 
«  Vol.  I,  p.  79. 


COUNCILS  OF  NICE  AND  LAODICEA         215 

no  mention  of  Laodicea.  Kev.  W.  Armstrong,  a 
scholar  of  Canton,  Pa.,  says  :  "  This  council  is  not 
even  mentioned  by  Mosheim,  Milner,  Ruter,  Reeves, 
Socrates,  Sozomen,  nor  by  four  other  historians 
on  my  table."  McClintock  and  Strong's  "  Cyclo- 
pedia "  says  of  this  council :  "  Thirty-two  bishops 
were  present  from  different  provinces  in  Asia."  All 
bishops  of  the  Eastern  Church,  not  one  from  the 
Roman  Church !  And  yet  this  was  the  time  and 
place  when  and  where,  according  to  Adventists' 
views,  the  Roman  Church  and  the  Pope  changed 
the  Sabbath  !  At  that  date  there  were  about  two 
thousand  bishops  and  eight  million  Christians  scat- 
tered all  over  the  world. 

9.  Now  think  of  it :  this  little  local  council  of 
thirty-two  bishops  revolutionizes  the  whole  world 
on  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath  immediately  with- 
out opposition ! 

10.  The  fact  is  that  this  council  simply  regulated 
in  this  locality  an  already  long  established  institu- 
tion, the  Lord's  Day,  just  the  same  as  council  after 
council  did  afterwards.  If  this  changed  the  Sab- 
bath to  Sunday,  then  it  has  been  changed  a  hun- 
dred times  since !  Sabbatarians  point  to  these  dif- 
ferent regulations  as  so  many  acts  in  changing  the 
Sabbath,  when  they  have  not  the  remotest  relation 
to  such  a  thing  any  more  than  have  the  resolutions 
with  regard  to  keeping  Sunday  which  are  passed 
year  by  year  now  in  all  our  religious  assemblies. 
Elder  E.  J.  Waggoner  makes  this  truthful  state- 
ment :  "  The  decrees  of  councils  have  not  as  a  gen- 


216      OKiaiN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSEE VANCE 

eral  thing  been  arbitrary  laws  telling  what  must  le^ 
so  much  SO  as  they  have  been  the  formulation  of 
the  opinions  and  practices  largely  prevalent  at  the 
time.  .  .  .  Infallibility  had  been  attributed  to 
the  Pope  hundreds  of  years  before  it  became  a  dogma 
of  the  Church."  '  Exactly,  and  just  so  the  Lord's 
Day  had  been  kept  by  the  Church  hundreds  of 
years  before  the  Council  of  Laodicea  mentioned  it. 

11.  The  Church  of  Laodicea  where  this  council 
was  held  was  raised  up  by  Paul  himself  (Col.  iv. 
13,  16;  1  Tim.  vi.,  close  of  the  epistle).  It  was 
one  of  the  seven  Churches  to  which  John  wrote 
(Kev.  iii.  14).  Hence  it  is  certain  it  was  well  in- 
structed and  grounded  in  the  doctrines  of  the  apos- 
tles. Between  Paul  and  this  council,  that  is  A.  D. 
270,  Anatolius  was  Bishop  of  Laodicea.  He  wrote : 
"  Our  regard  for  the  Lord's  resurrection,  which  took 
place  on  the  Lord's  Day,  will  lead  us  to  celebrate 
it  on  the  same  principle  "  (Canon  16).  Here  we 
have  that  Church  keeping  Sunday  one  hundred 
years  before  this  council. 

12.  Finally,  if  the  Council  of  Laodicea  changed 
the  Sabbath,  as  Adventists  say,  then  it  was 
changed  by  the  Greek  Church  instead  of  the  Ko- 
man  Church;  changed  by  the  Eastern  Churches 
over  which  Kome  had  no  authority ;  changed  be- 
fore the  Papacy  was  established,  by  a  small  local 
council  which  neither  the  Pope  nor  any  of  his 
servants  attended.  The  absurdity  of  this  claim  is 
manifest  without  further  argument. 

»  "Fathers  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  p.  333. 


COUNCILS  OF  NICE  AND  LAODICEA         217 

But  what  did  that  council  do  about  the  Sabbath 
anyway?  It  says  Christians  should  not  Judaize 
by  keeping  the  Sabbath,  but  should  keep  the 
Lord's  Day.  What  occasioned  this  reproof  ?  Euse- 
bius,  the  first  church  historian,  writing  forty  years 
before,  has  this  in  Chapter  XXYII : 

"  THE  HERESY  OF  THE  EBIONITES 

"  They  also  observe  the  Sabbath  and  other  dis- 
cipline of  the  Jews,  just  like  them,  but  on  the 
other  hand,  they  also  celebrate  the  Lord's  Day 
very  much  like  us,  in  commemoration  of  the  Kes- 
urrection." 

In  his  "  History  of  the  Church,"  Eusebius  gives 
the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  great  Christian 
Church  at  that  time,  which  then  numbered  ^ve 
million.  But  there  was  a  little  heretical  sect  called 
Ebionites.  What  was  their  error  ?  Wherein  did 
they  differ  from  the  universal  Church  ?  They  in- 
sisted on  keeping  the  Jewish  Sabbath  together 
with  the  Lord's  Day.  So  then,  forty  years  before 
Laodicea,  keeping  the  seventh  day  was  branded  by 
all  the  Church  as  a  heresy,  just  the  same  as  it  is 
now.  Ifc  was  practiced  only  by  a  few,  and  this 
council  condemned  it.  The  Eastern  Greek  Church 
was  the  one  that  here  put  down  the  observance  of 
the  Jewish  Sabbath,  that  is,  if  this  was  the  time 
and  place  when  it  was  done.  What,  then,  becomes 
of  the  assertion  that  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  was 
made  by  the  Pope,  the  Papacy,  or  the  Koman 
Church  ? 


218      OEIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

Now  when  Elder  Waggoner  rested  his  case  on 
the  Council  of  Laodicea  as  the  time  and  place 
when  and  where  the  Sabbath  was  changed,  did 
he  not  fail  and  fail  utterly  ?  As  seen  above,  that 
was  a  council  of  Eastern  bishops,  a  Greek  council, 
which  neither  the  Pope  nor  any  one  to  represent 
him  attended.  Neither  the  Pope,  nor  the  Papacy, 
nor  the  Eoman  Church  had  the  remotest  thing  to 
do  with  it.  As  well  claim  that  Eussia  established 
our  Fourth  of  July.  In  Waggoner's  failure,  the 
denomination  failed,  for  he  was  chosen  to  defend 
them  on  this  vital  point. 


X 

THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  LOED'S  DAY 

"  r  I  "^HE  Papacy  changed  the  Sabbath."  * 
I  This  is  a  leading  tenet  in  the  Seventh- 
JL  Day  Adventist  faith,  strongly  urged  in 
all  their  teachings.  Here  is  a  sample  in  their  own 
words  from  "  Words  of  Truth,"  Series  No.  33 : 
"  They  believe  that  the  change  of  the  Sabbath 
from  the  seventh  day  to  the  first  day  of  the  week 
was  brought  about  by  the  Papacy,  and  that  this 
change  of  the  Sabbath  is  foretold  in  prophecy 
(Dan.  vii.  25),  and  that  it  constitutes  the  sign,  or 
mark  of  the  Papacy."  All  their  literature,  spe- 
cially that  of  Mrs.  White's,  abounds  in  these  strong 
assertions. 

Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the  truth  than 
this  claim.     All  history  is  against  it. 

It  should  be  carefully  understood  that  the  Papacy 
is  distinctly  and  wholly  a  product  of  the  local 
Church  at  Kome,  the  Latin  Church,  the  Church  in 
the  west,  in  Italy.  The  "  Papacy,"  in  no  sense  of 
the  word,  began  to  exist  at  the  very  earliest  till 
four  or  five  centuries  after  Christ.  At  first  it  was 
confined  entirely  to  Italy,  then  was  gradually  ex- 
tended over  the  Western  Churches.  It  was  not 
fairly  established  even  there  till  a.  d.  600.  It 
>  "  Replies  to  Canright,"  p.  119. 
219 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  BAY   OBSERVANCE 

never  was  recognized  in  the  East  by  the  great 
Eastern  Greek  Church,  not  even  up  to  this  day. 
The  " Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia,"  Article  "Pa- 
pacy," says :  "  During  the  first  period  after  the 
foundation  of  the  Christian  Church,  the  Bishops 
of  Rome  exercised  no  primacy.  The  Council  of 
Nice  (325)  knows  nothing  of  a  primacy  of  Eome 
over  the  rest  of  the  Church."  This  is  well  into 
the  fourth  century. 

Johnson's  "  New  Universal  Cyclopaedia,"  Article 
"  Pope,"  says :  "  No  supremacy  was  either  claimed 
or  recognized  during  the  first,  second,  and  third 
centuries,  and  when,  in  343,  at  the  Council  of  Sar- 
dica,  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  see  over  the 
Christian  Church  was  spoken  of  for  the  first  time 
in  undisguised  terms,  the  Oriental  (Eastern)  bishops 
protested  and  left  the  council."  This  is  near  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century  again,  but  even  here 
it  was  opposed  and  that  council  was  never  recog- 
nized in  the  East. 

But  Adventist  authorities  themselves  will  settle 
this  point.  Elder  J.  H.  Waggoner  says :  "  Sylvester 
was  Bishop  of  Rome  during  the  most  of  the  reign 
of  Constantine  [312-336].  He  decreed  that  Sun- 
day should  be  called  the  Lord's  Day.  [There  is  no 
such  decree.  D.  M.  C]  But  this  could  affect  the 
Church  of  Rome  only,  for  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had 
not  then  yet  attained  to  any  authority  whatever 
above  the  other  bishops."  "It  was  Constantine 
himself  who  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Papacy."  * 
*  "  Replies  to  Canright,"  pp.  143,  148. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  LORB's  DAT   221 

Elder  Waggoner  admits  what  history  abundantly 
proves,  namely,  that  up  to  the  fourth  century  the 
Bishop    of    Eome    had   no  authority  over  other 
bishops,  and  that  the  foundation  of  the  Papacy  was 
not  laid   till  a.  d.  325   at  the  Council  of  Nice. 
Certainly  then  the  Papacy  did  not  exist  before  the 
foundation  for  it  was  laid.     But,  in  Chapter  Yl  of 
this  book,  we  have  given  plenty  of  proof  that  Sun- 
day was  observed  by  all  Christians  as  early,  at 
least,  as  a.  d.  140,  or  nearly  two  hundred  years 
before  even  the  foundation  of  the  Papacy  was  laid, 
as  Waggoner  admits.     Turn  back  to  page  137  and 
read   where  Justin   Martyr  says:   "On  the  day 
called   Sunday,   all  who  live  in  cities  or  in  the 
country  gather  together  to  one  place,"  and  then 
describes  their  meetings  nearly  the  same  as  we 
conduct  them  now.     Again  he  says :  *'  But  Sunday 
is  the  day  on   which  we  all  hold  our  common 
assembly,"  etc.     Here  we  have  Sunday  observed 
by  all  Christians   two  hundred  years  before  the 
Papacy  existed,  before  the  Bishop  of  Eome  could 
exercise  authority  over  other  bishops.     This  shows 
the  folly  of  attributing  the  beginning  of  Sunday- 
keeping  to  the  Papacy  two  hundred  years  later. 

Coming  down  still  further  to  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century,  Waggoner  quotes  with  approval  the 
following  from  McClintock  and  Strong's  "Cyclo- 
pedia " : 

"Leo  I,  saint  and  Pope,  surnamed  the  Great, 
noted  as  the  real  founder  of  the  Papacy." 
This  was  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  fifth 


222     OEIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

century.  In  the  same  article  McClintock  and 
Strong  say  of  Leo's  attempt  to  rule  other  Churches : 
"  A  strong  opposition  was  speedily  organized  both 
in  the  West  and  in  the  East,  and  soon  assumed  the 
attitude  of  open  defiance.'*  Only  a  small  part  of 
even  the  West  paid  any  heed  to  Leo's  claims.  The 
East  defied  him.  How  much  influence  could  the 
Papacy  at  that  date  have  in  changing  the  Sabbath 
the  world  over  ?  None  at  all.  The  Catholic 
monthly,  The  Ecclesiastical  Review^  February, 
1914,  page  237,  speaking  of  the  controversy  over 
Easter,  a.  d.  154,  says :  "  Shy  then,  as  it  always 
has  been,  of  introducing  Western  observances,  the 
Eastern  Church  sent  St.  Poly  carp  to  Eome  "  to 
protest  against  this  meddling  with  the  Eastern 
custom.  As  this  Catholic  author  admits,  that  has 
always  been  the  attitude  of  the  Eastern  Greek 
Church  towards  Eome — the  attitude  of  opposition. 
How,  then,  could  the  Papacy  impose  on  those 
great  independent  Eastern  Churches  a  pagan  day 
which  they  had  never  kept?  Adventists  take 
their  stand  at  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  364, 
and  claim  that  the  Sabbath  was  changed  there. 
Of  the  decree  of  this  council  Waggoner  says :  "  I 
have  shown  the  time,  the  place,  and  the  power  that 
changed  the  Sabbath."  * 

Here  is  his  proof  that  the  Papacy  changed  the 
Sabbath  and  he  stakes  all  upon  it.     But  in  Chap- 
ter IX  we  have  shown  that  this  was  an  Eastern 
Greek  council,  held  in  Greek  territory,  Asia  Minor, 
>  **  Replies  to  Canright,"  p.  151. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  LOED'S  DAY   223 

by  the  Greek  Church,  attended  only  by  Greek 
bishops.  JS'ot  one  single  person  was  there  from 
the  Koman,  or  Latin,  Church  in  the  West.  Neither 
Pope  nor  Papacy  had  the  slightest  thing  to  do 
with  it.  Hence,  the  attempt  to  prove  that  the 
Papacy  changed  the  Sabbath  here  is  a  failure. 
Moreover,  neither  Pope  nor  Papacy  yet  existed. 
The  Bishop  of  Rome  at  that  time  had  no  authority 
over  other  bishops  of  equal  rank  with  himself  of 
which  there  were  many. 

The  Papacy  was  entirely  a  Roman  affair,  limited 
for  centuries  to  Italy,  then  gradually  gaining 
influence  over  the  Western  Churches.  But  in  the 
East,  among  the  millions  of  Greek  Christians,  who 
for  centuries  were  far  greater  in  number,  intel- 
ligence, and  influence,  any  such  thing  as  a  Papacy 
was  wholly  unknown.  There  no  one  centralized 
authority  has  to  this  day  ever  been  acknowledged. 
Four  patriarchs  of  equal  authority  nominally 
govern  there.  These  are  in  Constantinople,  An- 
tioch,  Jerusalem,  and  Alexandria.  In  the  fourth, 
fifth,  and  sixth  centuries  when  the  Roman  Papacy 
undertook  to  claim  some  jurisdiction  there,  it  was 
hotly  resented  by  all  the  Eastern  Churches.  The 
opposition  between  these  two  great  sections  of  the 
Church  grew  with  increasing  bitterness  till  A.  D. 
1052,  when  the  East  excommunicated  Rome  be- 
cause it  would  never  acknowledge  any  authority 
of  the  Roman  Papacy.  They  are  separate  now. 
The  Greek  Church  now  claims  a  membership  of 
about  one  hundred  and  fifty  million.    With  the 


224:      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S   DAY   OBSERVANCE 

Protestant  Churches,  who  number  over  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  million  and  who  all  repudiate  the 
Papacy,  one-half,  or  more,  of  all  Christendom  is 
outside  the  Koman  Papacy  and  opposed  to  it.  So 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Koman  Catholic 
Church,  or  the  Papacy,  or  the  Pope,  has  never  had 
rule  over  more  than  a  divided  part  of  the  Christian 
Churches.  Yet  all  the  Churches  which  were  never 
subject  to  Rome  keep  Sunday  and  always  have. 
This  proves  that  Sunday  observance  did  not  come 
from  Rome. 

Another  very  important  fact  is  to  be  noticed  here  ; 
namely,  that  in  the  first  four  centuries  during  which 
the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day  was  fully  settled 
in  all  Christendom,  the  Roman  Church  was  greatly 
in  the  minority  both  in  numbers,  in  great  Christian 
leaders,  in  learning,  and  in  influence. 

Here  is  another  fact :  All  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  orthodox  Churches,  whether  Protestant, 
Papal,  or  Greek,  were  first  wrought  out  and  settled 
in  their  present  form  by  the  Eastern  Greek  Chris- 
tian scholars,  church  leaders,  and  oecumenical 
councils  dominated  by  the  Eastern  Church.  These 
include  the  canon  of  our  Holy  Scriptures,  the  deity 
of  Christ,  the  Trinity,  the  passing  of  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day,  etc 
The  Papal  Church  accepted  all  these  from  the 
Eastern  Church  and  later  endorsed  them,  but  origi- 
nated none  of  them.  This  cuts  up  by  the  roots  the 
Advent  theory  that  Sunday-keeping  originated 
with  the  Papacy. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  LOKD'S  DAY   225 

The  Greek  General  Council,  680,  excommunicated 
Pope  Honorius.  On  this  the  "  Schaff-Herzog  Cyclo- 
pedia," Article  "  Councils,"  says :  "  A  fact  rather 
embarrassing  to  the  dogma  of  papal  infallibility." 
This  shows  what  little  influence  the  Popes  or 
Papacy  had  as  late  as  680,  and  how  little  attention 
the  Greek  Church  paid  to  Kome.  Schaff's  "  His- 
tory of  the  Church,"  Yol.  Ill,  p.  325,  says :  It  con- 
sisted of  five  hundred  and  twenty  bishops,  only  five 
of  whom  were  from  the  Western  or  Koman  Church ; 
all  the  rest  were  Greeks  and  Orientals,  and  that  is 
the  date  when  Leo  I  was  Bishop  of  Kome,  the  one 
who  is  said  to  be  the  first  founder  of  the  Papacy. 
It  shows  how  little  influence  in  the  great  councils 
of  the  Church  that  infant  had  then. 

Stanley  says  :  "  The  Council  of  Constantinople 
was  avowedly  only  an  Eastern  assembly ;  not  a 
single  Western  bishop  was  present."  '  Yet  this 
was  a  general  council  and  accepted  by  Kome. 

But  according  to  the  arguments  of  the  Adventists 
themselves,  the  Sabbath  was  changed  by  the  Greek 
council  at  Laodicea,  a.  d.  364,  eighty-seven  j^-ears 
before  the  Papacy  was  so  much  as  founded !  In 
view  of  the  above  facts  what  becomes  of  the  as- 
sertion that  the  Sabbath  was  changed  by  the 
Papacy  ?  Adventists  cannot  produce  a  single  wit- 
ness saying  that  the  Papacy  changed  the  Sabbath. 
Yet  it  is  the  main  prop  of  their  theory. 

The  arguments  of  the  Adventists  themselves  put 
together  overthrow  their  own  position.  Thus  of 
1  "Hist.  East.  Ch.,"  p.  102. 


226      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

the  year  a.  d.  300,  their  "  History  of  the  Sabbath," 
pp.  373,  374,  edition  of  1912,  says :  "  We  have  now 
followed  the  history  of  Sunday  from  the  time  it  was 
first  mentioned  by  the  Gnostic  Pseudo-Barnabas, 
A.  D.  120,  as  the  mysterious  eighth  day,  until  it 
stands  out  clearly  and  definitely  as  the  first  day  of 
the  week  called  the  Lord's  Day."  Here  then,  a.  d. 
300,  it  was  clearly  and  definitely  "  the  Lord's  Day." 
This  they  have  admitted.  Coming  to  the  Council 
of  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  the  Advent  Review,  February 
26,  1914,  says :  "  The  Council  of  Mce  instituted 
the  first  day  Sabbath  to  displace  the  seventh  day 
Sabbath."  So  here  as  early  as  A.  D.  325,  they  have 
the  Sabbath  changed  by  this  great  Eastern  Greek 
council. 

So  their  "History  of  the  Sabbath,"  edition  oi 
1912,  of  this  council  says :  "  By  this  Canon  20,  the 
council  set  its  seal  upon  the  Sunday  law  of  Constan- 
tine  passed  by  the  State.  Henceforth  Sunday  was 
not  only  the  legal  holiday  of  the  State,  but  its  ob- 
servance was  acknowledged  and  regulated  by  the 
action  of  the  first  general  council  of  the  Church." 
"  Thus  the  highest  civil  and  ecclesiastical  authorities 
enforced  Sunday  as  the  universal,  legal  weekly 
holiday  for  all  the  subjects  of  the  vast  empire  " 
(page  406).  All  right,  l^ow  if  the  observance  of 
Sunday  was  thus  firmly  established  both  by  the 
State  and  the  Church,  A.  d.  325,  was  not  its 
observance  settled  forever?  Surely.  How  then 
could  the  day  be  changed  by  the  Papacy  which 
was  not  founded  till  over  a  hundred  years  later  ? 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  LOKD'S  DAY   227 

And  if  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  was  made  and 
settled  both  by  the  Church  and  the  State  in  all  the 
vast  empire  A.  D.  325,  how  could  the  Sabbath  be 
changed  again  at  Laodicea  A.  D.  364,  about  forty 
years  later  ? 

Their  various  and  contradictory  theories  eat  each 
other  up.  As  we  have  seen  both  the  Encyclopedia 
and  Waggoner  agree  that  Leo  was  the  real  founder 
of  the  Papacy.  But,  as  above,  Waggoner  himself 
definitely  locates  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  in  a.  d. 
364,  or  at  least  seventy -six  years  before  the  founder 
of  the  Papacy  came  into  office  ! 

But  when  was  the  Papacy  really  established? 
Adventists  themselves  locate  it  in  a.  d.  528.  Smith, 
in  "  Thoughts  on  Daniel  and  Kevelation,"  on  Dan. 
vii.  25,  says :  Justinian  "  issued  that  memorable 
decree  which  was  to  constitute  the  Pope  the  head 
of  all  the  Churches,  and  from  the  carrying  out  of 
which  in  538  the  period  of  papal  supremacy  is  to  be 
dated."  This  was  in  the  sixth  century.  That  great 
work.  Bower's  "  History  of  the  Popes," '  locates 
the  establishment  of  the  Papacy  in  a.  d.  600. 

For  two  hundred  years  previous  to  this  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople  had  held  the  title  of  "  universal 
head  of  the  Catholic  Church."  It  had  been  con- 
firmed to  him  by  emperors  and  a  great  council. 
(See  Bower  as  above,  same  page.)  Dowling's 
"  History  of  Komanism  "  is  another  high  authority 
on  this  subject.  On  page  39  read :  "  The  papal  su- 
premacy not  established  in  the  fourth  century." 
»Vol.  I,  pp.  426,  427. 


228      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  BAY   OBSERVANCE 

On  page  41  he  says  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
(451  A.  D.)  decreed  the  equality  of  the  Bishops  of 
Eome  and  Constantinople.  The  great  patriarchs  of 
Antioch  and  Alexandria  were  made  subject  to  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople  who  was  thus  greater 
than  the  Bishop  of  Kome  and  opposed  him  bitterly. 
On  page  61  Dowling  says :  "  During  the  last  few 
years  of  the  sixth  century,  the  contest  for  suprem- 
acy between  the  Bishops  of  Eome  and  Constanti- 
nople raged  with  greater  acrimony  than  at  any 
previous  period.  The  Bishop  of  Constantinople 
not  only  claimed  an  unrivalled  sovereignty  over 
the  Eastern  Churches,  but  also  maintained  that  his 
Church  was,  in  point  of  dignity,  no  way  inferior  to 
that  of  Kome."  It  will  be  seen  that  Kome  had  no 
influence  over  the  Eastern  Churches,  and  hence 
could  not  have  effected  any  change  in  their  day  of 
worship  if  it  had  tried. 

Is  there  any  statement  anywhere  in  any  history 
that  the  Pope  or  the  Papacy  ever  tried  to  change 
the  keeping  of  the  day  in  the  Eastern  Church? 
There  is  not  the  remotest  hint  of  such  a  thing. 
Koman  Catholics  never  mention  it,  never  claim  it. 
It  is  useless  to  follow  the  history  of  the  Lord's  Day 
this  side  of  Laodicea,  a.  d.  364,  for  even  Adventists 
admit  that  the  change  of  the  day  had  been  made 
by  that  time.  All  agree,  and  Adventists  admit, 
that  the  Papacy  was  not  formed  till  after  this — 
long  after.  So  the  Papacy  could  not  have  changed 
the  Sabbath  when  it  had  already  been  changed 
hundreds  of  years  before  there  was  any  Papacy. 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  LOED'S  DAY   229 

But  Adventists  try  to  get  over  this  difficulty 
this  way:  They  say  "The  spirit  of  the  Papacy 
existed  ages  before  the  actual  founding  of  the 
Papacy  occurred."  Answer :  What  is  the  spirit  of 
the  Papacy  ?  It  is  to  centralize  all  authority  of 
Church  and  State  in  one  person,  the  Pope  of  Kome. 
Then  this  centralizing,  one-man,  autocratic  person- 
age, with  despotic  power,  crushes  out  all  opposi- 
tion to  his  will.  This  is  the  spirit  of  the  Papacy. 
But  in  the  great  Eastern  Church  composing  the 
great  majority  of  Christendom  for  four  or  fiNQ  hun- 
dred years,  there  was  from  the  very  beginning  a 
deadly  opposition  to  any  such  spirit  of  centralized 
authority.  To  this  day  it  has  never  been  tolerated 
there.  From  the  first  council  in  Jerusalem  (Acts 
XV.)  to  the  present  a  democratic  spirit  has  existed 
and  has  been  dominant  there.  Stanley  says :  "  A 
similar  turn  is  given  to  the  institution  of  the  East- 
ern clergy  by  the  absence  of  the  organizing,  cen- 
tralizing tendency  which  prevailed  in  the  West."  * 
Again :  "  The  centralization  of  the  West,  as  dis- 
played in  the  Papacy,  is  unknown  in  the  East " 
(page  85).  Again :  "  The  Eastern  patriarchs  speak 
in  their  solemn  documents  of  the  papal  supremacy 
as  the  chief  heresy  of  the  latter  days  "  (page  90). 

There  was  never  any  Papacy  or  spirit  of  Papacy 
in  the  Eastern  Church,  or  any  recognition  of  the 
Koman  Papacy,  but  a  bitter  hostile  opposition  to  it 
till  finally  it  caused  a  separation  of  the  two  in  1062. 
Hence,  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Papacy  "  never  has  ex- 

1  **  History  of  the  Eastern  Church,"  p.  83. 


230     ORIGIN  OP  THE  LORD's  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

isted  in  the  Eastern  Church  where  the  Sabbath  was 
changed. 

Specially  mark  this  fact:  The  observance  and 
sanctity  of  the  Lord's  Day  was  fully  established 
throughout  all  the  great  Eastern  Churches  long 
before  the  Roman  Papacy  could  rule  even  in  the 
West,  much  less  in  the  East. 

Adventists  make  this  mistake :  Begin uing  right 
after  the  apostles,  wherever  they  find  Christians 
falling  into  false  notions  or  heretical  doctrines,  or 
adopting  worldly  ways,  they  pronounce  that  "  the 
spirit  of  the  Papacy."  All  their  books  on  the  his- 
tory of  the  Sabbath  and  Sunday  are  largely  made 
up  of  this  kind  of  argument.  But  it  is  a  fallacy. 
At  present  we  have  numerous  Churches  which  are 
neither  orthodox  nor  evangelical,  such  as  Univer- 
salists,  Unitarians,  Christian  Scientists,  Sweden- 
borgians,  etc.  But  none  of  these  have  any  of  the 
spirit  of  the  Papacy.  So  we  have  many  worldly 
Christians  and  worldly  churches,  but  they  do  not 
favor  any  Papacy. 

So  in  the  early  centuries,  those  in  the  Eastern 
Church  who  fell  away  from  the  faith,  or  lapsed  into 
w^orldliness,  did  not  thus  become  papists,  nor  have 
the  spirit  of  the  Papacy.  The  Papacy,  from  its 
very  earliest  inception  to  its  full  establishment,  was 
entirely  of  the  local  Church  at  Rome  and  the 
bishops  of  that  Church.  Because  it  was  the  im- 
perial city,  these  bishops  finally  became  ambitious 
to  rule  over  other  Churches.  They  schemed  and 
worked  till  after  long  centuries  they  gradually 


THE  PAPACY  AND  THE  LORD's  DAY   231 

subdued  Church  after  Church,  bishop  after  bishop, 
and  see  after  see,  till  about  a.  d.  600  the  Koman 
Papacy  was  established  in  the  West,  but  never  in 
the  East. 

The  "  spirit  of  the  Papacy  "  was  born  at  Eome 
in  the  Bishops  of  Eome  and  was  wholly  confined 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  West.  It 
was  never  tolerated  in  the  Eastern  Church,  nor  has 
it  ever  had  the  slightest  thing  to  do  with  the  Sab- 
bath question  there.  But  the  Lord's  Day  was  firmly 
established  in  all  Christendom,  East  and  West, 
centuries  before  the  Papacy  succeeded  in  establish- 
ing itself  even  in  Rome.  Hence  it  is  utterly  false, 
absurd,  and  contrary  to  the  plainest  statements  of 
all  history  to  claim  that  the  Lord's  Day  originated 
with  the  Papacy  at  Rome,  and  was  then  forced  on 
the  great  Eastern  Churches  over  which  the  Papacy 
never  had  any  authority. 

^'Ihwve  read  this  chapter  and  find  it  correct. 

— Bishop  Raphael." 

Bishop  Raphael  was  educated  in  three  seminaries : 
Damascus,  Constantinople,  and  Kiev,  Russia.  He 
has  twice  received  the  degree  of  "  Doctor  of  Divin- 
ity." He  is  the  head  of  the  Greek  Orthodox 
Church  in  America.  Hence,  he  is  well  qualified  to 
state  correctly  the  position  of  the  Eastern  Church 
on  this  question. 


XI 

THE  M AEK  OF  THE  BEAST— WHAT  IS  IT  1 

SEVENTH-DAY  ADYENTISTS  teach  that 
the  ten-horned  beast  of  Kev.  xiii.  1-10  is  the 
Papacy  and  that  the  two-horned  beast  of 
verses  1 1-1 8  is  the  United  States.  No  commentator 
or  Christian  scholar  of  this  or  any  other  age  of  the 
Church  agrees  with  them  in  this.  Plausible  ex- 
positions of  these  symbols  have  been  offered,  many 
of  them  far  better  sustained  than  the  one  Adventists 
have  invented.  For  myself,  I  am  sure  the}:  are 
wrong  on  both  these  beasts,  but  I  will  not  argue 
that  point  as  it  is  not  essential  in  the  question 
before  us.  Grant  their  claim  that  the  beast  is  the 
Papacy,  then  the  question  is.  What  is  the  supreme 
mark  of  the  Papacy  ?    This  is  easily  settled. 

1.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  assert  in  the  most 
positive  manner  that  the  Pope  changed  the  Sabbath 
to  Sunday.  "The  Pope  has  changed  the  day  af 
rest  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day." ' 

2.  Then  they  affirm  that  "  Sunday -keeping  must 
be  the  mark  of  the  beast."  ^  "  The  Sunday  Sabbath 
is  purely  a  child  of  the  Papacy.  It  is  the  mark  of 
the    beast."  ^    "  Sunday    the  distinctive  mark  of 

^Mrs.  White,  "Early  Writings,"  p.  55. 
2  "The  Marvel  of  Nations,"  by  U.  Smith,  p.  183. 
'  Advent  Review,  Vol.  I,  No.  2,  August,  1850. 
232 


MAEK  OF  THE  BEAST,  WHAT? 

papal  power."  This  is  the  heading  of  Chapter 
XXII  in  their  ^'History  of  the  Sabbath,"  1912. 
The  whole  chapter  is  devoted  to  it.  They  thunder 
this  into  the  ears  of  people,  and  threaten  them  with 
God's  wrath  if  they  keep  Sunday,  till  they  frighten 
ignorant  souls  to  give  it  up. 

3.  This  change  in  the  Sabbath,  they  say,  was 
made  by  the  Popes  at  the  Council  of  Laodicea, 
A.  D.  364.'     This  was  over  1,500  years  ago. 

4.  All  who  keep  Sunday,  they  assert,  worship 
the  beast  and  receive  his  mark.  "  Sunday-keeping 
is  an  institution  of  the  first  beast,  and  all  who  sub- 
mit to  obey  this  institution  emphatically  worship 
the  first  beast  and  receive  his  mark,  '  the  mark  of 
the  beast.'  .  .  .  Those  who  worship  the  beast 
and  his  image  by  observing  the  first  day  are  cer- 
tainly idolaters,  as  were  the  worshippers  of  the 
golden  calf."^  This  language  is  too  plain  to  be 
mistaken.  All  who  keep  Sunday  are  idolaters  and 
have  the  mark  of  the  beast. 

5.  But,  strange  to  tell,  they  now  all  deny  that 
any  one  has  ever  had  the  mark  of  the  beast.  "  We 
have  never  so  held,"  says  Smith.^  All  right,  though 
this  is  a  square  denial  of  what  they  once  taught, 
as  above.  It  is  a  common  thing  for  them  to 
change  their  positions  and  then  deny  it.  We  pro- 
ceed; 

6.  The  United   States   will  soon  pass  a  strict 

*  "  Replies  to  Elder  Canright,"  p.  151. 

^Advent  Review  Extra,  pp.  10  and  11,  August,  1850. 

*  "  Marvel  of  Nations,"  p.  184. 


234      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

Sunday  law  and  unite  Church  and  State  ;  then  all 
who  still  keep  Sunday  will  have  the  mark.* 

ANSWER 

Does  the  Bible  say  that  the  mark  of  the  beast  is 
keeping  Sunday?  No,  indeed.  That  is  only 
another  one  of  their  assumptions.  To  establish 
this,  they  have  to  make  a  long,  roundabout  set  of 
arguments,  built  upon  inferences  none  of  which  are 
sound.     Their  theory  is  false,  because : 

1.  The  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished  at  the 
cross  (Col.  ii.  16).  Hence,  it  was  not  changed  by 
the  Pope. 

2.  Sunday  is  the  Lord's  day  of  Kev.  i.  10. 
(See  Chapter  YI  of  this  book.) 

3.  The  Pope  never  changed  the  Sabbath.  This 
point  I  have  proved  conclusively.  This  fact  alone 
upsets  their  whole  argument  on  the  mark  of  the 
beast. 

THE  ABSURDITIES  OF  THEIR  POSITION 

1.  Sunday-keeping  has  been  the  mark  of  the 
beast  for  1,500  years.  During  all  this  long  time 
millions  have  kept  Sunday  on  the  sole  authority  of 
the  Eoman  Church,  and  yet  no  one  had  the  mark ! 

2.  The  keeping  of  Sunday  has  been  time  and 
again  and  in  many  countries  enforced  by  law  and 
severe  penalties,  just  as  they  say  it  will  be  in  the 
future  here,  and  yet  none  of  those  who  have  kept 
it  as  thus  enforced  have  had  the  mark  of  the  beast ! 

1  **  Marvel  of  Nations,"  p.  185. 


MARK  OF  THE  BEAST,  WHAT?  235 

3.  Church  and  State  have  been  united  in  various 
countries,  and  have  enforced  this  institution  of  the 
Papacy,  as  they  call  it,  and  yet  it  was  not  enforc- 
ing the  mark  of  the  beast ! 

4.  For  over  1,500  years,  taking  their  own  dates, 
all  the  pious  of  the  earth,  the  martyrs,  the  reform- 
ers, the  Luthers,  Wesleys  and  Judsons,  have  ob- 
served Sunday  and  enjoyed  the  blessing  of  God, 
but  now,  all  at  once,  the  whole  world.  Christians 
and  all,  are  to  be  damned  and  drink  the  wrath  of 
God  for  doing  just  what  all  holy  men  have  done 
for  ages !  Of  Sunday-keeping  in  the  future,  Mrs. 
White  says :  "  That  must  be  a  terrible  sin  which 
calls  down  the  wrath  of  God  unmingled  with 
mercy."'  This  terrible  sin  is  just  what  all  the 
Church  of  Christ  has  practiced  for  ages,  and  yet 
have  had  God's  blessing !    How  absurd. 

5.  It  is  attempted  to  dodge  this  point  by  say- 
ing that  those  of  other  ages  did  not  have  the  light 
on  the  Sabbath.  This  is  not  true.  Luther,  Bun- 
yan,  Baxter,  Milton,  all  had  the  "  light "  on  the 
Sabbath  question,  and  rejected  it  and  wrote  against 
it.  Then  I  can  do  it,  too,  and  not  have  the  mark 
of  the  beast,  if  they  did  not. 

6.  If  it  is  worshipping  the  beast  to  rest  from 
physical  labor  on  Sunday  after  one  knows  that 
Sunday  is  the  Pope's  Sabbath,  then  many  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  are  worshippers  of  the  beast. 
Why?  Because  they  often  rest  on  Sunday. 
Book  agents,  colporteurs,  teachers,  drummers,  pei^ 

*  "  Great  Controversy,"  p.  282. 


236      ORIGIN    OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

sons  visiting  relatives,  ministers  in  new  places,  etc., 
all  frequently  rest  on  Sunday,  and  even  go  to 
church  and  hold  meetings  all  day !  Are  they  wor- 
shippers of  the  beast?  Why  not?  Do  you  say 
they  only  do  it  for  convenience  or  from  policy? 
Just  so  they  can  rest  on  Sunday  for  the  same  rea- 
son when  the  law  shall  require  it,  and  not  worship 
the  beast  any  more  than  Adventists  do  now. 

7.  Deny  it  as  they  may,  the  Seventh-Day  Ad- 
ventist  teachings  do  make  all  Sunday-keepers,  both 
now  and  in  past  ages,  worshippers  of  the  beast, 
having  the  mark  of  the  beast.  Here  is  proof  in 
their  own  words : 

1.  The  Pope  changed  the  Sabbath.  Sunday  is 
only  the  Pope's  day.    (See  above.) 

2.  "  The  mark  of  the  beast  is  the  change  the 
beast  made  in  the  law  of  God  "  in  the  Sabbath.  * 
Then  the  mark  of  the  beast  existed  as  soon  as  the 
change  was  made,  which  they  locate  1,500  years 
ago.  Is  not  this  conclusion  inevitable?  If  the 
mark  of  the  beast  is  the  change  of  the  Sabbath 
which  was  made  by  the  Papacy  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, then  that  mark  has  existed  ever  since.  There 
is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion. 

3.  All  who  have  kept  the  law  since  that  date, 
as  changed  by  the  beast,  have  been  keeping  the 
law  of  the  beast,  not  the  law  of  God ;  have  been 
worshippers  of  the  beast,  not  worshippers  of  God. 
Here  is  their  own  argument  for  it :  Keferring  to 
the    prophecy  that   the  Papacy  should   "change 

*  "  Marvel  of  Nations,"  p.  175. 


MAEK  OF  THE  BEAST,  WHAT?  23Y 

times  and  laws  "  (Dan.  vii.  25),  which  they  claim 
the  Pope  fulfilled  a.  d.  364  by  changing  the  Sab- 
bath to  Sunday,  Elder  Smith  says :  "  When  this  is 
done  [which  is  1,500  years  ago],  what  do  the  peo- 
ple of  the  world  have  ?  They  have  two  laws  de- 
manding obedience  " — the  law  of  God  and  the  law 
of  the  Pope.  "  If  they  keep  the  law  of  God,  as 
given  by  Him,  they  worship  and  obey  God.  If 
they  keep  the  law  as  changed  by  the  Papacy, 
they  worship  that  power.  .  .  .  For  instance, 
if  God  says  that  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath, 
on  which  we  must  rest,  but  the  Pope  says  that  the 
first  day  is  the  Sabbath,  and  that  we  should  keep 
this  day,  and  not  the  seventh,  then  whoever  ob- 
serves that  precept  as  originally  given  by  God,  is 
thereby  distinguished  as  a  worshipper  of  God ;  and 
he  who  keeps  it  as  changed  is  thereby  marJced  as 
a  follower  of  the  power  that  made  the  change. 
.  .  .  From  this  conclusion  no  candid  mind  can 
dissent." ' 

Then,  for  the  past  fifteen  hundred  years,  all  who 
have  kept  Sunday  have  been  "  marked  "  as  follow- 
ers of  the  beast  and  have  worshipped  him !  From 
their  own  argument,  does  not  this  inevitably  fol- 
low ?  Of  course  it  does.  When  they  try  to  deny 
and  evade  this  conclusion,  they  simply  contradict 
and  stultify  themselves.  Either  their  argument  is 
a  fallacy,  or  else  this  conclusion  must  follow. 
Look  at  this  hideous  Moloch  which  they  have  set 
up  to  frighten  the  ignorant.  The  Pope  in  the 
^  "  Marvel  of  Nations,"  pp.  174  and  175. 


238     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

fourth  century  changed  the  law  of  God  by  chang- 
ing the  Sabbath  to  Sunday.  This  change  is  the 
mark  of  the  beast ;  whoever  after  that  keeps  that 
law  as  thus  changed  is  keeping  not  the  law  of 
God,  but  the  Pope's  law ;  is  worshipping,  not  God, 
but  the  Pope.  But  all  Christians  for  fifteen  hun- 
dred years  have  kept  Sunday,  the  Pope's  Sabbath, 
the  mark  of  the  beast,  and,  as  Smith  says,  were 
"  thereby  marked  as  followers  of  the  power  that 
made  the  change."  From  this  conclusion  there  is 
no  escape.  And  so  all  Sunday -keepers  have  had 
the  mark  of  the  beast,  and  have  it  now. 

But  they  say  that  they  do  not  teach  that  any 
one  as  yet  has  had  the  mark  of  the  beast.  This 
shows  the  absurdity  of  their  argument.  Sunday- 
keeping  is  the  mark  of  the  beast,  yet  Sunday-keep- 
ers have  not  got  the  mark  of  the  beast!  For 
instance :  I  have  a  hundred  counterfeit  bills  ;  I  pay 
them  out  to  fifty  men  in  Otsego,  and  they  take 
and  keep  them,  yet  not  a  man  of  them  has  a 
counterfeit  bill !  Isn't  that  clear — as  mud  ?  But 
they  don't  know  that  they  are  counterfeit  bills, 
and  so  are  not  guilty  for  having  them.  But  have 
they  not  got  counterfeit  bills  for  all  that  ?  Cer- 
tainly. So,  if  Sunday-keeping  is  the  mark  of  the 
beast,  then  they  have  it  whether  they  know  it  or 
not.  God  may  not  hold  them  guilty  for  it,  but 
they  have  it  just  the  same.  Now,  as  soon  as  these 
fifty  men  are  informed  that  their  bills  are  counter- 
feit, are  they  not  guilty  if  they  use  them  after 
that?    Yes.     So,  as  soon  as  a  man  is  informed 


MARK  OF  THE  BEAST,   WHAT  ?  239 

that  Sunday  is  the  mark  of  the  beast,  if  he  keeps 
it  after  that  has  he  not  the  mark  of  the  beast  as 
truly  as  ever  he  can  have  it  ?  And  if  he  still  keeps 
Sunday  voluntarily  is  he  not  just  as  guilty  before 
God  as  though  the  law  compelled  him  to  keep  it  ? 
Yes,  and  more  so ;  because  now  he  has  no  excuse, 
while  then  he  could  plead  that  he  was  compelled 
to  do  it.  So,  then,  it  needs  no  Sunday  law  to  give 
men  the  mark  of  the  beast.  All  Sunday-keepers 
have  it  already,  and  as  soon  as  they  are  informed 
that  Sunday  is  the  mark  of  the  beast,  then  they 
are  guilty  as  worshippers  of  the  beast.  But 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  have  already  informed 
thousands  upon  this  point.  Then  if  they  have 
not  the  mark  of  the  beast,  why  not  ?  Eemember 
that  Luther,  Milton,  Baxter,  Bunyan  and  William 
Miller,  father  and  founder  of  Adventism,  were  all 
informed  on  the  Sabbath  question,  and  still  wrote 
against  it  and  kept  Sunday.  Keader,  this  Advent 
mark  of  the  beast  is  an  absurdity  and  only  a  scare- 
crow.   Don't  be  frightened. 

Even  if  the  Pope  did  change  the  Sabbath  to 
Sunday,  that  would  not  make  Sunday  his  mark. 
The  mark  of  any  person  was  that  which  he  used  to 
mark  things  as  belonging  to  him.  In  Bible  times 
a  master  would  put  his  mark  on  the  right  hand  or 
forehead  of  his  slaves.  Heathen  gods  had  their 
worshippers  marked  so.  This  custom  is  referred  to 
and  used  here  as  an  illustration.  So  the  worshippers 
of  the  beast  would  be  required  to  do  something 
which  would    mark    or  distinguish  them  as  his 


240    oEiaiN  OF  THE  lord's  day  observance 

followers.  But  keeping  Sunday  does  not  distinguish 
a  Catholic  from  members  of  other  Churches,  for  all 
Churches  keep  Sunday — the  Greek,  Armenian, 
Lutheran,  Episcopal,  Methodist,  etc.  The  Pope  has 
never  used  Sunday  to  distinguish  his  followers  from 
others,  nor  as  proof  of  his  authority  as  head  of  the 
Church.  He  does  point  to  the  keys  of  St.  Peter 
and  his  regular  apostolic  succession  from  him  as 
proof  of  his  authority.  Says  Dowling:  "The 
Popes  assert  Hheir  divine  right  of  supremacy  in 
consequence  of  their  claiming  to  be  the  successors 
of  the  Apostle  Peter.' "  '  On  this,  not  on  Sunday- 
keeping,  they  base  their  claim  of  power.  Some 
obscure  writer  is  quoted,  claiming  authority  for  the 
Church  to  "  command  feasts  and  holy  days," 
because  that  Church  has  made  Sunday  holy.  This 
falls  infinitely  short  of  making  Sunday  the  proof  of 
all  their  authority,  the  one  "  mark  "  of  that  Church. 
4.  It  is  absurd  to  say  that  observing  Sunday  as 
the  Sabbath  is  such  a  fearful  crime  as  Adventists 
affirm.  Hear  Elder  Smith :  "  Sunday-keeping 
must  be  the  mark  of  the  beast."  "  The  reception 
of  his  mark  must  be  something  that  involves  the 
greatest  offense  that  can  be  committed  against 
God."  ^  So  keeping  Sunday  is  more  wicked  than 
lying,  stealing,  or  even  murder  or  idolatry  !  Such 
a  statement  is  monstrous.  In  the  mind  of  any 
candid,  thinking  man,  it  must  break  down  under 
the  weight  of  its  own  absurdity. 

*  "  History  of  Romanism,"  p.  44. 
^  "Marvel  of  Nations,"  pp.  170,  183. 


MARK   OF  THE  BEAST,   WHAT?  241 

WHAT,  THEN,  IS  THE  MARK  OF  THE  BEAST  ? 

What  do  Catholics  themselves  claim  as  the  mark 
of  the  Papal  Church  ?  Do  they  say  what  it  is  ? 
Yes,  most  emphatically.  In  every  doctrinal  book 
they  publish,  no  matter  how  small,  even  a  few 
paged  catechism  for  little  tots,  up  to  a  great 
cyclopedia  of  many  volumes,  this  mark  is  always 
given  in  bold  head-lines,  thus : 

"  MARKS  OF  THE  CHURCH  " 

Here  is  a  sample  from  "  A  Shorter  Catechism  of 
the  Catholic  Keligion  "  : 

"  By  what  marJcs  may  the  true  Church  of  Christ 
be  known  ? 

"  The  true  Church  of  Christ  may  be  known  by 
these  four  marks.  She  is  (1)  One ;  (2)  Holy ; 
(3)  Catholic;  (4)  Apostolic. 

"  Which  Church  has  all  these  four  marks  ? 

"  It  is  plain  that  no  Church  has  all  these  four 
marks  except  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  that  is, 
the  Church  which  acknowledges  the  Pope  of  Borne 
as  the  head  "  (pages  37-38). 

Here  are  the  marks  of  that  Church  given  exactly 
the  same  in  every  catechism  and  doctrinal  work. 
Is  Sunday-keeping  one  of  them  ?  No.  It  is  never 
named  in  that  list  of  marks.  The  crowning  one  of 
these  is  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  Pope 
of  Eome.  So  to  acknowledge  his  supreme  authority 
is  to  acknowledge  that  Church  as  the  true  Church. 
Here  you  have  the  marh  of  the  least,  if  the  Papacy 
is  that  heast!    Seventh-Day  Adventists  say  that 


242      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

the  "Beast"  of  Kev.  xiii.  1-10  is  the  Papacy. 
Suppose  we  grant  it.  Then  they  say  that  Sunday- 
keeping  is  the  "  mark  "  of  this  beast,  the  Papacy. 
This  we  emphatically  deny.  The  supreme  mark, 
the  one  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  Papacy, 
is  the  swpremaGy  of  the  Pope.  This  one  feature 
distinguishes  it  from  all  other  churches.  Thus 
Johnson's  "  New  Universal  Cyclopedia "  says : 
"  Koman  Catholic  Church,  that  body  of  Christians 
which  acknowledges  the  authority  of  the  Pope  of 
Rome."  Again  in  the  same  article  it  says  :  "  The 
best  summary  of  the  leading  articles  of  the  Eoman 
faith  is  contained  in  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  lY, 
which  is  binding  upon  all  priests  and  public  teachers, 
and  which  must  be  confessed  by  all  converts." 
There  are  eleven  articles.  The  tenth  says :  "  I  prom- 
ise and  swear  true  obedience  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
successor  to  St.  Peter,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and 
Yicar  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Every  Catholic  must  take  this  oath.  No  one 
can  become  a  member  without  it.  Whoever  con- 
fesses his  adherence  to  this  dogma  thereby  is  marhed 
as  a  papist,  distinct  from  all  other  Churches.  When 
he  swears  acceptance  of  this  article,  he  thereby 
promises  obedience  to  all  the  requirements  of  the 
Roman  Church.  Then  is  not  this  the  marh  of  that 
Church  ?    Surely. 

Here  are  a  few  more  quotations  from  Catholics 
on  the  same  subject : 

"  The  Church  which  Jesus  Christ  established 
may  be  defined  briefly  as  a  society  composed  of  all 


MARK  OF  THE  BEAST,  WHAT?  243 

who  practice  religion  according  to  the  guidance  of 
His  vicar  (the  Pope)  on  earth."  ' 

"  The  whole  Catholic  world  of  more  than  two 
hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  souls  acknowledges 
and  obeys  the  Pope,  the  Bishop  of  Kome,  as  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter  and  the  vicar  of  Christ  on 
earth."  ^ 

Notice  that  all  the  time  it  is  the  supremacy  of 
the  Pope  that  is  insisted  upon  as  the  one  important 
mark  of  the  true  Church.  It  was  a  protest  against 
this  claim  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  that 
brought  on  the  great  Eeformation  under  Luther 
and  others.  Thus  Conway,  a  Catholic,  in  the  "  Ques- 
tion Box,"  says :  "  The  Keformers  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  indeed,  claimed  a  special  mission  to  over- 
throw the  existing  government  of  the  Church  by 
denying  the  universal  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope" 
(page  187). 

Yes,  it  was  a  protest  against  the  supremacy  of 
the  Pope's  authority  which  brought  on  the  great 
Reformation.    Hence,  the  name  "  Protestants." 

Eome  still  urges  the  acknowledgment  of  this 
papal  mark.  As  late  as  September  29,  1913, 
Cardinal  Gibbons,  in  the  Baltimore  American^ 
says : 

"  The  reunion  of  the  scattered  branches  of  Chris- 
tendom is  a  consummation  to  be  devoutly  wished. 
The  first  essential  requirement  is  the  recognition 

»'•  Manual  of  Theology  for  the  Laity,"  p.  185,  by  Rev.  P. 
Geiermann. 
^  Same  book,  p.  233. 


244     OKIGITT   OF  THE  LOED'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

of  the  sovereign  pontiff,  who,  as  the  successor  of 
St.  Peter,  is  the  divinely  appointed  head  of  Chris- 
tendom." 

Notice  that  "  the  jwst  essential  thing  "  is  to  rec- 
ognize the  supremacy  of  the  Pope.  That  is  the 
one  supreme  question,  the  one  test  above  all  others. 
Accept  that  and  all  else  will  be  easily  settled  !  Of 
course,  for  that  carries  with  it  obedience  to  the 
whole  papal  system.  Here  you  have  the  mark 
plainly  enough. 

"There  must  be  a  distinguishing  characteristic 
which  through  all  the  differences  of  color,  nation- 
ality, or  education,  will  inevitably  mark  each 
adherent  of  that  system  and  leave  no  question  as  to 
one's  relation  to  it."  A  Catholic  may  be  a  loyal 
Englishman,  an  American,  a  Chinaman,  a  Japanese, 
a  negro,  or  an  Indian,  no  matter  where  he  lives,  or 
to  what  nation  he  belongs,  the  one  person  towards 
whom  his  fealty  never  wavers  is  "the  Holy  Father," 
the  Pope  of  Eome. 

Even  Elder  Smith,  Adventist,  says  of  this  mark : 
"  It  will  evidently  be  some  act  or  acts  by  which 
men  will  be  required  to  acknowledge  the  authority 
of  that  power  (Papacy)  and  yieM  obedience  to  its 
mandates."  *     That  is  correct. 

Every  Catholic  is  required  to  do  just  exactly  that, 
acknowledge  the  supremacy  and  infallibility  of  the 
Pope  of  Rome  and  yield  implicit  obedience  to  his 
authority  and  mandates.  Does  keeping  Sunday  do 
that? 

1 "  Thoughts  on  Revelations,"  p.  591, 


MARK  OF  THE  BEAST,  WHAT?  245 

Here  is  a  question.  Mark  it  well.  Does  Kome 
ever  require  a  person  to  promise  to  keep  Sunday  as 
a  test  of  admittance  as  a  member  ?  Never !  My 
neighbor  is  a  Catholic  in  good  standing,  yet  he 
works  every  Sunday.  Could  he  deny  the  supremacy 
of  the  Pope  and  remain  a  member  ?  JS'o.  Which, 
then,  is  the  mark  of  loyalty  to  Rome  ?  Is  it  Sun- 
day-keeping? Even  an  Adventist  must  see  the 
absurdity  of  that. 

During  the  long  night  of  papal  supremacy  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  were  persecuted,  their  goods 
confiscated,  themselves  driven  out  to  die  as  martyrs, 
because  they  would  not  acknowledge  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  Pope.  This  is  what  all  Protestants 
have  been  warring  against  for  three  hundred  years 
and  are  doing  it  still.  "The  Supremacy  of  the 
Pope  of  Rome  "  has  been  the  one  disputed  question 
in  the  history  of  the  Church  from  the  sixth  century 
on  till  now.  The  great  Eastern,  or  Greek,  Church 
would  never  submit  to  it,  and  finally  severed  all 
connection  with  Rome  on  this  very  account.  That 
issue  is  just  as  prominent  to-day  as  ever.  Protes- 
tant Churches  protest  against  it  now  the  same  as 
then.  Read  our  church  papers ;  also  the  Menace, 
Protestant  Magazine,  etc. 

If  a  man  confesses  his  faith  in  the  Roman  pontiff 
as  head  of  the  Church  and  infallible,  is  he  not 
counted  by  all  as  a  Roman  Catholic  ?  Certainly. 
Now  contrast  this  with  Sunday-keeping.  In  my 
city  there  are  Baptists,  Methodists,  Presbyterians, 
Congregationalists,  Episcopalians,  Disciples,  Luther- 


246     ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSERVANCE 

ans,  United  Brethren,  and  other  Churches — all  keep 
ing  Sunday.  Does  this  mark  them  as  Roman  Cath- 
olics ?  Does  any  one  think  of  them  as  papists  on 
this  account  ?  Do  they  themselves  ever  think  of  it 
as  marking  them  Catholics  ?  Do  the  Catholics  them- 
selves count  these  as  Catholics  because  they  keep 
Sunday  ?  Absolutely  no.  Every  intelligent  person 
knows  that  keeping  Sunday  does  not  mark  any 
one  as  a  papist.  But  to  acknowledge  the  Pope  as  the 
infallible  head  of  the  Church  does  do  this.  Is  not 
this  absolutely  true  ?  Then  what  is  the  one  uni- 
versal mark  of  a  Roman  Catholic  ?  Is  it  Sunday- 
keeping?  "We  all  know  better.  It  is  loyalty  to 
the  Pope  of  Rome.  No  candid  man  will  deny  that. 
Every  Catholic  authority  will  agree  with  it.  Here, 
then,  is  the  "  mark  "  of  the  Papacy. 

What  is  the  one  characteristic  mark  of  a  Moham- 
medan ?  It  is  loyalty  to  Mohammed  as  God's 
prophet.  What  of  a  Christian  Scientist  ?  Loyalty 
to  Mrs.  Eddy  as  head  of  that  Church.  What  of  a 
Christian  ?  Loyalty  to  Christ  as  the  head  of  the 
Church.  What,  then,  is  the  chief  mark  of  a  papist  ? 
Loyalty  to  the  Pope,  "  the  Holy  Father,"  as  the 
supreme  infallible  head  of  the  Papacy.  Every 
Catholic  will  say  that.  Here  is  the  mark  of  the 
beast,  if  the  Papacy  is  the  beast  as  Adventists  claim. 


xn 

THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS  NOT  CHANGED 
BY  CATHOLICS— AD  VENTISTS  DECAP- 
ITATE THE  DECALOGUE 

SEYENTH-DAY  ADYENTISTS  say  that  the 
Catholic  Church  has  cut  out  the  second  one, 
the  one  against  images,  has  changed  the 
Sabbath  precept,  and  divided  the  tenth  one  into  two 
to  make  up  the  ten.  How  do  they  try  to  prove 
this  ?  They  quote  from  Catholic  catechisms,  small 
ones,  where  only  a  few  words  of  the  longer  com- 
mandments are  given,  while  the  rest  is  omitted. 
The  short  ones  are  given  in  full  and  our  tenth 
divided  into  two.  Then  they  compare  these  com- 
mandments in  the  Catholic  catechisms  with  those  in 
our  Bible.  Is  this  fair  ?  No.  They  should  compare 
the  commandments  in  Catholic  Bibles  with  those  in 
our  Bibles,  and  those  in  Catholic  catechisms  with 
those  in  Protestant  catechisms.  This  is  the  only  fair 
way.  If  they  did  this,  they  would  find  no  material 
difference  in  either.  I  have  both  Bibles  before  me. 
Opening  to  Exodus  xx.  all  the  ten  commandments, 
every  word  of  each  one,  images,  Sabbath,  the  tenth, 
and  all,  are  given  in  full  in  the  Catholic  Bible  ;  not 
a  word  is  omitted.     Get  one  and  see  for  yourself. 

Now  compare  Catholic  catechisms  with  Protes- 
tant catechisms.     Is  there  any  material  difference 

247 


248      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LOED'S   DAY  OBSERVANCE 

between  them  in  quoting  the  commandments? 
None  at  all.  In  order  to  be  sure  on  this  point,  I 
have  spent  much  time  to  thoroughly  investigate  it. 
I  have  gathered  a  large  number  of  Catholic  cate- 
chisms. Have  them  here  now.  Then  have  gone 
to  the  pastors  of  many  Protestant  Churches,  as 
Baptist,  Episcopal,  Presbyterian,  Lutheran,  Dutch 
Eeformed,  etc.,  and  have  examined  their  catechisms. 
In  all  these  I  find  they  have  done  practically  the 
same  as  the  Catholics  have.  In  the  Protestant 
catechism  for  small  children,  generally  only  a  few 
words  from  the  long  commandments  are  given, 
while  the  short  ones  are  given  in  full.  This  is  to 
save  space  and  memorizing.  The  Catholics  have 
done  the  same  thing  and  for  the  same  reason.  Then 
each  Church,  Protestant  or  Catholic,  explains  these 
their  way ;  but  the  commandments  themselves  are 
given  as  full  in  one  as  in  the  other. 

On  one  side  of  my  home  is  a  Catholic  family,  on 
the  other  side  is  a  Protestant  family — Lutheran.  I 
borrowed  catechisms  of  both.  Here  are  the  ten 
commandments  in  the  small  Catholic  catechism : 

"  Say  the  ten  commandments. 

"  I.  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  who  brought  thee 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bond- 
age. Thou  Shalt  iiavs  no  strange  gods  before  me  ; 
thou  shalt  not  maKe  to  thyself  any  graven  thing, 
nor  the  likeness  of  anything  that  is  in  the  heaven 
above,  or  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  in  the  waters 
under  the  earth.  Thou  shalt  not  adore  them  nor 
serve  them. 


DECALOGUE  NOT  CHANGED  BY   CATHOLICS      249 

"  II.  Thou  Shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord 
thy  God  in  vain. 

"  III.  Eemember  that  thou  keep  holy  the  Sab- 
bath day. 

"IV.  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother  that  it 
may  be  well  with  thee,  and  thou  mayest  live  long 
on  the  earth. 

"Y.    Thou  Shalt  not  kill. 

"  VI.     Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

"  YII.    Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

"YIII.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness 
against  thy  neighbor. 

"  IX.     Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife. 

"  X.     Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  goods." 

Notice  here  that  Catholics  include  in  the  first 
commandment  what  we  call  the  second  command- 
ment. Then  our  tenth  is  divided  into  two.  Luther- 
ans divide  them  just  the  same  way.  Further  on 
I  will  give  the  reason  for  this.  Observe  that  the 
command  against  images  is  given  in  full.  And 
this  is  a  small  Catholic  catechism  used  by  my 
neighbor. 

JSTow  here  are  the  commandments  as  given  in  the 
small  catechism  used  by  my  Lutheran  neighbor,  a 
Protestant : 

"  I.  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God.  Thou  shalt  have 
no  other  gods  before  me. 

"  11.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord 
thy  God  in  vain. 

"  III.     Thou  shalt  keep  the  Sabbath  day  holy. 
"lY.    Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother  that 


250      OEIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S   DAY   OBSERVANCE 

thou  mayest  live  long  upon  the  land  which  the 
Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee. 

"Y.     Thou  Shalt  not  kill. 

"  VI.     Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

"  VII.     Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

"VIII.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness 
against  thy  neighbor. 

"IX.  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's 
house. 

"  X.  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife, 
nor  his  man-servant,  nor  his  maid-servant,  nor  his 
ox,  nor  his  ass,  nor  anything  that  is  thy  neighbor's." 

Notice  in  this  Protestant  catechism  that  our 
second  commandment  is  omitted  entirely.  Why  ? 
Was  it  to  get  rid  of  that  one  because  it  forbid 
images?  No,  for  Lutherans  use  no  images,  but 
oppose  them.  They  include  our  second  in  their 
first,  the  same  as  do  Catholics.  So  they  give  only 
the  first  words  and  omit  the  long  explanation. 
That  is  all.  Then  the  tenth  is  divided  into  two, 
the  same  as  the  Catholic.  None  of  this  was  done, 
whether  by  Lutherans  or  Catholics,  to  "  mutilate 
the  law  of  God,"  as  Adventists  say.  It  is  one  of 
the  ways  of  dividing  them,  that  is  all.  (See  ex- 
planation and  table  at  close  of  this  chapter.) 

My  Catholic  neighbor,  mentioned  above,  also 
loaned  me  a  larger  catechism  which  his  daughter 
studies  in  the  Catholic  high  school  here.  It  is  en- 
titled, "  A  Full  Course  of  Instruction  in  Explana- 
tion of  the  Catechism,  by  Kev.  J.  Perry,  for  Col- 
leges, Academies,  and  Private  Families.    Endorsed 


DECALOGUE   NOT  CHANGED   BY    CATHOLICS      251 

by  the  Archbishop  of  St.  Loais."  Notice,  this  is 
used  in  high  schools,  colleges,  academies,  and  fam- 
ilies. Beginning  on  page  151,  there  are  fifty-nine 
pages  given  to  the  ten  commandments.  Each  one 
is  given  in  full.  The  first  one  begins,  and  properly 
too,  with  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,"  etc.  Then 
all,  every  word,  of  our  first  and  second  command- 
ments, is  given  in  the  first  one ;  not  a  word  against 
images  is  omitted. 

Coming  to  the  Sabbath  precept,  our  fourth,  but 
their  third,  I  read :  "  Kecite  the  full  text  of  the 
third  commandment."  Then  every  word  of  the 
Sabbath  precept  is  given  in  full,  not  a  word  omitted 
or  changed,  and  so  of  the  whole  ten.  Obedience 
to  each  of  these  is  taught  as  Catholics  understand 
them. 

What  now  becomes  of  the  assertion  that  Catho- 
lics have  "  mutilated  the  law  of  God  "  or  have  ex- 
punged one  of  the  ten  commandments  ?  It  is  not 
the  truth.  All  that  can  be  truthfully  said  is  that 
they  explain  them  differently  from  what  Protes- 
tants do.  But  they  believe  in  them  all,  teach  all  of 
them  and  print  all  of  them  in  full  in  their  Bibles 
and  in  their  larger  catechisms.  In  their  small 
catechisms  they  do  just  as  Protestants  do  in  their 
small  ones,  viz.,  give  a  few  words  of  each.  Hence 
it  is  unfair  to  compare  these  little  catechisms  with 
the  whole  law  in  our  Bible. 

Koman  priests  are  guilty  of  withholding  the 
entire  Bible  from  their  people,  so  that  the  great 
mass  of  them  never  see  a  Bible.    When  priests  do 


252      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

quote  the  Bible,  they  quote  it  correctly  enough,  but 
explain  it  to  suit  Komanism.  They  quote  the  pre- 
cepts about  images  and  the  Sabbath  correctly,  but 
explain  both  to  fit  their  views.  As  they  are  ac- 
cused of  breaking  the  second  commandment  by  the 
use  of  images,  they  are  careful,  as  seen  above,  to 
put  in  every  word  of  that  precept  even  in  their 
small  catechisms.  Then,  of  course,  they  have  to 
explain  it  all  away.  They  have  perverted  the  entire 
Gospel  as  well  as  the  Old  Testament. 

Neither  the  Popes  nor  the  Koman  Church  had 
anything  to  do  with  dividing  the  Decalogue. 
Every  word  of  the  ten  commandments  is  given 
whichever  way  they  are  divided. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  in  the  Hebrew,  in 
which  the  Decalogue  was  written,  the  words  all 
ran  right  along  together.  There  were  no  marks 
whatever  between  the  words  or  the  command- 
ments. Hence  all  were  left  to  divide  them  as  each 
judged  nearest  correct.  So  it  happened  that  they 
were  divided  differently,  that  is  all. 

THE  CATHOLIC  DIVISION  OF  THE  DECALOGUE 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  have  made  a  great  ado 
over  the  way  Catholics  divide  and  number  the  ten 
commandments.  They  have  gotten  up  a  chart 
showing  in  one  column  the  Decalogue  "  as  changed 
by  the  Pope  "  and  in  another  as  "  given  by  God." 
Here  they  show  how  "  the  Pope  has  changed  God's 
law  in  fulfillment  of  Dan.  vii.  25."  According  to 
this,  the  Catholics  included  in  the  first  command- 


DECALOGUE  NOT   CHANGED   BY   CATHOLICS      253 

ment  what  we  have  in  the  first  two.  Then  our 
third  is  their  second,  our  fourth  their  third,  and  so 
on  till  our  tenth,  of  which  they  make  two.  Adven- 
tists  claim  that  the  Pope  did  this  to  get  rid  of  the 
second  commandment  and  to  change  the  Sabbath. 
But  the  whole  thing  is  utterly  false,  as  may  be  seen 
under  the  word  decalogue  in  any  religious  encyclo- 
pedia.    The  "  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  "  says : 

"There  have  been  three  arrangements  of  the 
Decalogue — the  Talmudic  (Jewish),  the  Augustinian 
(adopted  by  the  Koman  Catholic  and  Lutheran 
Churches),  and  the  Hellenistic  (Greek),  the  view  of 
Philo,  Josephus,  Origen,  the  Greek  and  Keformed 
Churches,  etc.  The  following  table  exhibits  the 
differences,  the  record  in  Exodus  xx.  being  used. 

TALMUDIC  HELLENISTIC  AUGUSTINIAN 

1.  I  am  the  Lord,  etc.  1.  Against  idols,  (v.  3).  1.  Against  idols  and  Im- 
„     .^'^.•^^•,.  ,        ^.  2.  Against  images,  (4-6).  ages,  (3-6). 

2.  Agamst  idols  and  im-  3.  Blasphemy.  2.  Blasphemy. 

ages,  (3-6).  4.  The  Sabbath.  3.  The  Sabbath. 

3.  Blasphemy.  5.  Filial  Obedience.  4.  Filial  Obedience. 

4.  The  Sabbath.  6.  Murder.  5.  Murder 

5.  Filial  Obedience.  7.  Adultery.  6.  Adultery. 

6.  Murder.  8.  Theft.  7.  Theft. 

I'  i^^"]}®^-  ^'  ^^^^®  witness.  8.  False  witness. 

8.  Theft.  10.  Coveting.  9.  Thou  shalt  not  covet 

in  n^  ffnTi"®^-  ^^y  neighbor's h.  (17). 

10.  Coveting.  10.  The  rest  of  v.  17. 

It  will  be  seen  here  that  the  Catholics  have 
simply  followed  Augustine,  one  of  the  early  Fathers, 
in  this,  while  we  have  followed  the  Greeks. 

Augustine,  a.  d.  353-430,  was  neither  a  Pope 
nor  a  papist.  I^ext  to  Paul,  he  was  the  most 
devoted  and  renowned  minister  Christianity  ever 
produced.  He  had  the  most  profound  reverence 
for  the  Holy  Scriptures.     The  Catholics  and  Luther- 


254      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD's  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

ans  have  followed  his  division  of  the  Decalogue. 
Hence  this  division  was  not  made  by  a  Pope  nor 
by  the  Papacy.  A  little  investigation  of  facts  ex- 
poses the  weakness  of  many  of  the  Sabbatarian 
arguments  like  this  one. 

THE  DECALOGUE  DECAPITATED 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  Adventists  themselves 
are  the  ones  who  "  mutilate  "  the  commandments. 
They  leave  off  the  most  important  part  of  the 
Decalogue,  viz.,  that  part  which  tells  who  gave  the 
law,  when  it  was  given,  and  to  whom  given.  Con- 
sulting a  lawyer,  he  tells  me  that  every  law  passed 
by  a  state,  or  by  the  United  States,  in  order  to  be 
of  binding  force,  must  begin  with  what  is  called, 
"  The  Enacting  Clause."  Thus,  opening  to  a  law 
passed  by  the  legislature  of  Michigan,  February 
16,  1882,  I  read  :  "  Be  it  enacted  by  the  senate  and 
house  of  representatives  of  the  State  of  Michigan," 
etc.  Then  follows  the  body  of  the  law  of  which 
this  "  enacting  clause  "  is  a  necessary  part.  That 
introductory  clause  tells  who  gave  the  law,  when  it 
was  given,  and  to  whom  given.  Leave  these  words 
off  and  the  law  is  a  dead  letter. 

Exactly  so  with  the  Decalogue.  The  enacting 
clause  is  there  in  plain  words. 

Let  us  examine  it.  Moses  says  distinctly  that  all 
the  words  which  the  Lord  spoke  were  written  on 
the  tables  of  stone  :  "  And  the  Lord  delivered  unto 
me  two  tables  of  stone,  written  with  the  finger  of 
God  :  and  on  them  was  written  according  to  all  the 


DECALOGUE  NOT  CHANGED  BY  CATHOLICS     255 

words  which  the  Lord  spake  with  you  in  the  Mount, 
out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire  "  (Deut.  ix.  10).  This 
text  is  too  decisive  to  be  evaded.  All  that  God 
spoke  was  written  on  the  tables  and  was  a  part  of 
the  Decalogue.  Here  are  the  first  words :  "  And 
God  spake  all  these  words,  saying,  I  am  the  Lord, 
thy  God,  which  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage.  Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  gods  before  Me,"  etc.  (Ex.  xx.  1-3). 
These  words  are  as  much  a  part  of  the  Decalogue 
as  any  of  the  rest  of  it.  They  were  spoken  by  God 
from  heaven,  written  by  His  finger,  were  engraven 
on  the  stone,  and  put  in  the  ark. 

Adventists  urge  that  the  ten  commandments  are 
of  higher  importance  than  other  parts  of  the  law, 
because  they  were  spoken  directly  by  God's  own 
voice,  written  with  His  finger,  engraved  on  stone, 
put  in  the  ark  and  placed  in  the  Most  Holy  Place. 
Yery  well.  All  this  is  true  of  these  words  in  the 
enacting  clause,  or  first  words.  These  words  were 
spoken  by  God,  written  by  God,  engraved  on  the 
stone,  put  in  the  ark,  and  then  in  the  Most  Holy 
Place  just  the  same  as  all  the  rest  of  the  command- 
ments. Hence  one  is  as  sacred  as  the  other  and  all 
should  be  kept  together.  These  explain  directly 
who  the  author  of  that  law  is,  viz..  The  Lord  thy 
God  that  brought  thee  out  of  Egyptian  bondage, 
l^othing  could  be  plainer.  They  should  be  left 
where  God  put  them. 

Now  look  at  the  law  chart  which  the  Seventh- 
Day   Adventists  hang  up  as  the  "  Law  of  God." 


256      ORIGIN   OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY   OBSERVANCE 

Are  these  words  on  there?  No,  indeed.  They 
are  left  off.  If  put  on,  they  would  spoil  their 
whole  theory  of  that  law. 

They  assert  that  the  Sabbath  precept  is  the  only 
thing  in  the  Decalogue  that  tells  who  gave  it. 
Thus :  "  Aside  from  this  precept  [the  Sabbath] 
there  is  nothing  in  the  Decalogue  to  show  by 
whose  authority  the  law  is  given."  * 

This  is  not  true.  The  opening  words  of  that 
law,  "  the  enacting  clause,"  tell  as  plainly  as  words 
can  tell  who  gave  it,  when  it  was  given,  and  to 
whom  given.  See  how  clear  it  is:  "I  am  the 
Lord  thy  God  that  brought  thee  out  of  Egypt. 
Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  Me."  To 
whom  does  "  Me  "  refer  ?  Only  one  answer  can 
be  given :  It  refers  to  the  Lord  God  who  has 
just  spoken.  He  first  tells  them  who  He  is,  and 
then  all  the  commandments  that  follow  are  given 
on  His  authority. 

But  Adventists  mutilate  the  law  by  cutting  the 
head  right  off,  by  leaving  off  the  enacting  clause, 
and  then  assert  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Deca- 
logue except  the  Sabbath  precept  to  tell  who  gave 
that  law  !     Is  not  this  misleading  ? 

Take  an  audience  of  one  hundred  people,  hang 
up  the  law  chart  as  Adventists  print  it  with  the 
introductory  words  left  off,  and  how  many  of  the 
audience  would  notice  the  omission  ?  Few,  if  any 
at  all.  The  preacher  then  asserts  that  there  is 
nothing  in  that  law  except  the  Sabbath  precept  to 

^  Mrs.  White,  in  "  Great  Controversy,"  p.  284. 


DECALOGUE  NOT   CHA^S^GED   BY   CATHOLICS      25T 

tell  who  gave  the  law  !  No  wonder  people  are 
misled.  In  the  second  copy  of  the  law  given  in 
Deut.  V.  1-22  all  reference  to  creation  is  omitted 
while  every  word  of  the  enacting  clause  is  on 
there.  This  shows  that  deliverance  from  Egypt 
was  the  authority  on  which  that  law  was  made. 
Adventists  accuse  Catholics  of  mutilating  the  Dec- 
alogue. It  is  exactly  the  other  way.  Catholics 
include  all  the  introductory  words  in  the  first 
commandment,  and  then  give  the  whole  together. 
Thus  "  A  Study  of  the  CathoHc  Religion,"  by  Rev. 
Chas.  Coppens,  page  283:  "The  first  command- 
ment is  thus:  *I  am  the  Lord  thy  God  who 
brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the 
house  of  bondage.  Thou  shalt  not  have  strange 
gods  before  Me,'  "  etc.  You  see  Catholics  always 
include  all  the  enacting  clause  in  the  first  com- 
mandment, just  as  should  be  done.  In  every  Cath- 
olic catechism  or  doctrinal  book  when  the  com- 
mandments are  quoted  they  all  begin  the  same 
way  with  these  words,  just  as  God  Himself  began 
them  :  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God  that  brought  thee 
out  of  Egypt."  There  are  two  hundred  and  fifty 
million  Catholics,  half  of  Christendom,  who  all 
quote  the  commandments  that  way.  So  also  the 
entire  Greek  Orthodox  Catholic  Church,  number- 
ing one  hundred  and  fifty  millions,  all  include  those 
words  in  the  first  commandment.  I  went  to  their 
priest  and  he  showed  me  how  they  quote  them. 
Then  all  the  Lutherans,  fifty  millions,  do  the  same. 
Then  all  the  Jewish  people,  fourteen  millions,  do 


258      OEIGIN  OF  THE  LORD's   DAY   OBSERVANCE 

the  same.  So  over  five  hundred  million  believers  in 
the  Bible  all  include  those  words  in  the  first  com- 
mandment.    But  Adventists  leave  off  these  words. 

Leaving  all  the  words  of  the  ten  commandments 
on  just  as  God  gave  them  spoils  the  argument  that 
the  Sabbath  is  the  seal  of  the  law.  To  prove  this 
they  assert  that  there  is  nothing  else  in  that  law 
that  tells  who  gave  it.  But  the  first  words  tell 
who  gave  it.  This  squarely  contradicts  their  posi- 
tion, as  is  readily  seen. 

I  call  on  them  to  throw  away  their  old  charts  of 
the  ten  commandments  and  print  them  just  as  God 
gave  them. 

Evidently  originally  the  Adventists  did  not 
leave  off  these  important  words  with  the  purpose 
of  deceiving.  Elders  White,  Bates,  Khodes,  etc., 
the  first  leaders,  were  not  scholarly  men.  In 
printing  the  law  chart,  they  simply  copied  it  after 
those  used  by  the  Episcopal  Church  and  others  in 
church  service.  By  them  the  words  were  omitted 
to  save  length  in  repeating.  While  I  was  an  Ad- 
ventist  minister  I  have,  hundreds  of  times,  preached 
from  that  law  chart  and  argued  just  as  they  do 
now  with  no  thought  of  deceiving.  I  simply  did 
not  then  know  any  better,  nor  do  most  of  them 
now.  But  their  intelligent  leaders  should  know 
better,  because,  for  over  twenty  years  past,  I  have 
called  their  attention  to  this  unfair  omission  which 
plainly  contradicts  the  argument  that  the  Sabbath 
precept  is  the  only  thing  that  tells  who  gave  the 
law. 


DECALOGUE  NOT  CHANGED  BY  CATHOLICS     259 
"  HE  SHALL  THINK  TO  CHANGE  TIMES  AND 

laws" — Dan.  mi.  25. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  make  great  capital  of 
this  text.  They  argue  that  it  meaiis  the  Pope, 
or  Papacy.  Then  they  claim  that  the  Papacy 
changed  the  Sabbath,  the  fourth  commandment, 
and  thus  fulfilled  this  prophecy.  To  this  we  object. 
In  Chapter  YI  we  have  proved  that  the  change  in 
the  day  was  made  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  hun- 
dreds of  years  before  there  was  any  Papacy.  In 
Chapter  YII  we  have  shown  that  the  change  in 
the  day  was  made  in  the  Eastern  Church,  where 
the  Papacy  never  ruled. 

The  wording  of  Dan.  vii.  25  shows  that  the  text 
has  a  far  wider  meaning  than  merely  changing  the 
Sabbath.  It  was  to  change  "  times  and  laws " — 
both  plural.  To  change  the  Sabbath  would  only 
be  changing  one  time  and  one  law.  This  would 
not  fulfill  the  prophecy.  But  the  Papacy  has 
changed  numerous  "times  and  laws."  Bead  the 
following  from  "  Systematic  Study  of  the  Catholic 
Eeligion,"  by  Chas.  Coppens,  page  318 : 

"  THE  COMMANDMENTS  OF  THE  CHURCH 

"  The  laws  enacted  by  the  Church,  in  order  to 
guide  her  members  to  eternal  salvation,  are  many 
and  numerous.  They  are  contained  in  her  Canon 
Law." 

Then  follows  a  long  list  of  holy  "  times  "  and 
church  "  laws "  which  are  not  in  the  Bible,  and 
these  times  and  law^s  have  been  changed  time  and 


260      ORIGIN  OF  THE  LORD'S  DAY  OBSEBVANOE 

again  through  the  centuries.  (See  any  commen- 
tary on  Dan.  vii.  25.) 

The  Koman  Church  has  fulfilled  this  prophecy 
many  times  over  outside  of  any  reference  to  the 
Sabbath. 

The  Pope  claims  the  right  to  change  or  annul 
the  laws  of  beings  or  states  and  has  often  done  so. 
He  decrees  holy  days  and  holy  times,  then  changes 
them  at  his  will.  All  this  has  been  prominent  in 
the  history  of  the  Papacy  during  the  Dark  Ages. 
This  has  amply  fulfilled  the  prophecy  without  any 
reference  to  the  Sabbath. 

This  text,  Dan.  vii.  25,  is  the  one  on  which  Ad- 
ventists  rely  to  prove  that  the  Papacy  has  changed 
the  Sabbath.  They  quote  it  on  all  occasions  as 
proof  positive  on  this  point.  But  the  careful  reader 
will  notice  that  they  have  to  read  into  the  text 
what  the  Lord  omitted  to  put  there.  The  Sabbath 
is  in  no  way  mentioned  in  the  text.  They  have  to 
go  a  long  way  and  assume  much  to  even  make 
their  theory  look  plausible. 

Just  so  Kev.  xiv.  12,  "  Here  are  they  that  keep 
the  commandments  of  God,"  is  their  great  text  to 
prove  that  the  Sabbath  is  to  be  restored  by  them 
now.  But  here  again  they  put  in  what  the  Lord 
left  out — the  Sabbath. 

If  the  Lord  meant  the  Sabbath  in  both  texts  why 
did  He  not  say  so  instead  of  leaving  it  for  Advent- 
ists  to  insert  later  ?  They  make  these  texts  play 
the  tune  which  fits  their  theory,  that  is  all. 


Appendix  A 

SUNDAY  CIVIL  LAWS  CONSTITUTIONAL 

SEVEl^TH-DAY  ADVEI^TISTS  assert  that 
all  Sunday  laws  are  unconstitutional  because 
the  constitution  forbids  making  any  law  con- 
cerning the  establishment  of  religion.  But  a  civil 
law  restricting  labor  on  Sunday  has  nothing  to  do 
with  establishing  religion.  It  is  simply  the  exercise 
of  the  ^^police  power"  given  to  every  state.  The 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is  the  highest 
authority  in  our  nation.  It  has  repeatedly  declared 
civil  Sunday  laws  constitutional.  In  1895  (Hen- 
nington  vs.  Georgia)  the  court  said :  "The  legislature 
having  the  power  to  enact  laws  to  secure  the  comfort, 
happiness,  and  health  of  the  people,  it  was  within 
its  discretion  to  fix  the  day  when  all  labor  within  the 
limits  of  the  State,  works  of  necessity  and  charity 
excepted,  should  cease." 

Again  in  1884  the  same  high  court  said.  The  Sun- 
day law  is  not  "a  religious  regulation,  but  is  the 
legitimate  exercise  of  the  police  power,  and  is  itself 
a  police  regulation.  The  day  of  rest  ordinance  by 
the  state  is  a  civil,  not  a  religious,  institution." 

Later,  Song  Hing  vs.  Crowly,  said :  "Laws  setting 
aside  Sunday  as  a  day  of  rest  should  be  upheld,  not 
from  any  right  of  the  Government  to  legislate  for 
the  promotion  of  religious  observances,  but  from  its 

261 


262  APPENDIX    A 

right  to  protect  all  citizens  from  the  physical  and 
moral  debasement  which  comes  from  uninterrupted 
labor." 

Similar  decisions  upholding  Sunday  laws  as  civil 
police  regulations  have  been  rendered  by  the 
Supreme  Courts  of  a  large  number  of  states,  as 
Georgia,  South  Carolina,  Ohio,  !N'ew  York,  Massa- 
chusetts, West  Virginia,  Illinois,  Louisiana,  Mary- 
land, Kansas,  etc. 

These  impartial  high  courts  are  far  better  judges 
of  what  is  constitutional  than  are  partisan  Ad- 
ventists.  In  their  selfish  zeal  to  oppose  all  Sunday 
regulations,  Adventists  go  beyond  the  truth  and  con- 
tradict the  highest  legal  authorities  in  the  United 
States. 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


Date  Due 

0  27^ 

1* 

''f 

U        is 

?i- 

M" 

AG    2-54 

FAC^:.  .  i 

^.r . 

..     :   ■: 

h 

SB^P'®^^^^^ 

'-^^iQpiMMilHMMI 

' 

ju^^pm 

ift- 

■f"^ 

»■ 

